Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
Franis Engel
Hello A.T.ers,
This article has some interesting ramifications for those of us who are teaching people to choose more often, check it out
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=tough-choices-how-making
I'm curious, with our unique point of view, what sorts of issues does the article give you to think about?
Franis Engel
Keith Bacon
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=tough-choices-how-making
> I'm curious, with our unique point of view, what sorts of issues does the article give you to think about?
conciously control their individuality they will wear themselves out?
I would guess an AT perspective would be the same as a buddhist one?
That our intuition is far better at making complex decisions than our
reason. We think there must be a best choice and think there must be a
way of deducing what it is. Then we think round the same circles again
and again - wearing our brain out...
As the ego/self loses power we realise that maybe we can just go with
the flow of our intuition and understand that our minds playing out
future scenarios is pointless as the world is too complex for us to
predict outcomes. And whatever happens the core you is still you and
that matters more than whether you got the right car, best holiday,
hair-style etc.
I think this is what Marcus Aurelius meant by 'know your logos and follow it'.
This is the sort of study where I wish they would factor in a group of
AT (or similar) people to see if there are clear differences.
Keith.
PS One of my trainers said 'Everything just gets soooo easy' . They
should study her.
Franis Engel
Aloha Keith,
I think that it's such an interesting topic for many reasons that pertains directly to the practice of Alexander Technique. Here's a quote from the article:
"Evidence implicates two important components: commitment and trade-off resolution. The first is predicated on the notion that committing to a given course requires switching from a state of deliberation to one of implementation. In other words, you have to make a transition from thinking about options to actually following through on a decision. This switch, according to Vohs, requires executive resources. In a parallel investigation, Yale University professor Nathan Novemsky and his colleagues suggest that the mere act of resolving trade-offs may be depleting. For example, in one study, the scientists show that people who had to rate the attractiveness of different options were much less depleted than those who had to actually make choices between the very same options."
First off, now it's obvious why Alexander teacher training classes are so exhausting for some people, even though movements are simple and being done easier. It's the demand of what the article calls that executive function processing that tires people's brains out. Obviously, learning A.T. has to do with training this "executive function." Perhaps a person's capacity for directing attention and making choices is similar to a muscle that needs exercising to become more flexible and easier to use?
When learning anything, lots of extra energy may be expended in hopes that some of it will work as intended. To change any strategy that has worked so often in the past takes some strategic thinking...usually it feels like alien thinking!
My experience with A.T. is that it trains perception and offers ways to uncover new and creative thinking strategies. As an example of this, instead of using attention like a searchlight, (which is very common in the Western world,) A.T. trains a person to use their attention all-inclusively like an artist's eye or like a hunter scanning a scene to discern the subtle motions of camouflaged animals. Think of how exhausting it would be to turn all your energy to one selection after another in searchlight fashion! Wouldn't it be easier to merely open up to a multitude of possibilities to do the selecting for you?
It's wild and revolutionary that it would be productive to spend effort stalling habitual responses so experimental variations can occur by themselves. That it is possible to select the relevant accidents to reinforce by again using these new experimental means of freeing motion to repeat them instead of our usual "filing & classifying" systems - this is strange. These new strategies are a bit stupefying and paradoxical.
It's an interesting question when people ask, "But if I learn how to consciously direct my movements, won't I end up like the centipede who couldn't go anywhere because he started thinking too much about all his legs?"
(A question for anyone on the list:) Given your experience in Alexander Technique, would you reply to that?
Undoubtedly this issue has got to be one of the the bigger blocks against neophytes accepting the amount of reasonable thinking it takes to learn A.T. It's probably also why so many people turn to A.T. when they absolutely do not have any other better choices and are at the end of their rope concerning their mystery problems. Why is it human nature to wait until the painful breakage point before bothering to do anything to improve things?
In case you didn't catch it the first time around, this is the article we're talking about. Join the conversation!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=tough-choices-how-making
Franis Engel
"Your intention is trumped by their perception."
- Scott Fox, Author of "Internet Riches"
--- On Thu, 4/30/09, Keith Bacon <keith...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Jeremy Chance
My own empirical experience, for what it is worth, is that the quality
of joy tends to enliven what would otherwise be a drag on my resources.
I totally know - from experience - the phenomena they are writing
about. That lazy, let-my-mind-go-anywhere feeling that often comes
after an extended four days of teaching and meetings. And, again my
own research with nothing to back it up, tells me that when I think I
"have to" or "should" there is no joy. When I tap into the "I decided
and these are the benefits for me" and I really "get" the benefits
emotionally, I joyfully amaze myself at the capacity I discover of
significantly increasing my productivity (which in my case means
multiple choice making on a great variety of different projects.) with
ease and simplicity. Depletion comes, for sure, but long after I am
used to it arriving.
They didn't mention the effects of joy and enthusiasm on this phenomena.
cheerfully
Jeremy
ja...@mac.com
090-2284.0869 (Japan +81)
Jeremy Chance
Again I think this issue illustrates Marj's genius as a teacher - she
saw that tapping into the joy of her students ("You always move better
with a smile") was less "exhausting" and instead had them gleefully
making new choices because of the clear and present benefits that
would come to their chosen passion. Fatigue does come - of course -
but there is MUCH MORE stamina available for the work.
It's another convincing argument - for me - for AT teachers to give up
this relentless obsession of getting in and out of a chair, which to
me gets more and more ridiculous as I get more experience in the
pedagogy of harnessing a student's interest to the process of making
new choices. I don't mean to insult people, but I really do think it's
such a waste doing 60~100% of only chair work all the time. These
days, my average would be around 2~3%.
I predict the day will come when this is the norm in our profession,
and I intend to be one of the key instigators of this transformation
of our profession. It's time to give up the tired old pedagogical
methods of Alexander's heyday, and come into the 21st century.
Finally, scientific research is giving us some solid reasons to make
this change!
Franis Engel
Greetings list members and Jeremy,
you wrote:
> They didn't mention the effects of joy and enthusiasm on
> this phenomena.
Yes, you are right about that, I would include "talent" to that list also. Personal meaning did not enter into the quotient of what was being measured. Ditto for the effects of the decision - did it redirect more energy into the desired purposes, or was it perceived as a "waste" of time and energy?
What I'm curious about is: does practicing decision making extend one's tolerances for doing so? I would imagine it does, from my personal experience. The next question that begs to be asked is, " how can we "refresh" someone's capacity to continue to make decisions?" ...Related would be, "how can we refresh a person's capacity to continue to challenge themselves when the end of their rope has been reached?"
Anyone has some of their own answers to these questions that they have asked before and experimented with themselves or their AT students?
Would love to hear them... Any AT volunteers for this study? Maybe this is something for an AGM meeting!
Franis Engel
"The great thing in this world is not so much where you stand, as in what direction you are moving."- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841 - 1935), American Jurist
--- On Mon, 5/18/09, Jeremy Chance <ja...@mac.com> wrote:
> From: Jeremy Chance <ja...@mac.com>
> Subject: [alextech-list] Re: Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
> cheerfully
>
> Jeremy
> ja...@mac.com
> 090-2284.0869 (Japan +81)
>
> On Thu30/Apr/09, at Thu 30 Apr 10:51 PM, Franis Engel
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello A.T.ers,
> >
> > This article has some interesting ramifications for
> those of us who
> > are teaching people to choose more often, check it
> out
> >
> >
> > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=tough-choices-how-making
> > I'm curious, with our unique point of view, what sorts
> of issues
> > does the article give you to think about?
> >
> >
> > Franis Engel
> >
>
>
Jeremy Chance
That's simple - but not easy. Success. In the marketplace - it's been
tough. We have been working at it now for 10 years in Japan, and I'd
say we are on track to soon export something the Alexander community
has never seen before. Something with a little more economic muscle
that we are used to having...
As they say in Japan - please wait.
cheerfully
Jeremy
_
Jeremy Chance
AT Teacher in Japan
mailto:ja...@mac.com
On Sat23/May/09, at Sat 23 May 9:00 AM, Joe Boland wrote:
> I couldn't agree with you more, Jeremy, but I'm still trying to
> imagine what would be the catalyst for such a pedagogical paradigm
> shift.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> Jeremy Chance wrote:
>> It's another convincing argument - for me - for AT teachers to give
>> up this relentless obsession of getting in and out of a chair,
>> which to me gets more and more ridiculous as I get more experience
>> in the pedagogy of harnessing a student's interest to the process
>> of making new choices. I don't mean to insult people, but I really
>> do think it's such a waste doing 60~100% of only chair work all
>> the time....
>>
>> . ..It's time to give up the tired old pedagogical methods of
Jeremy Chance
I do regret that you may feel "belittled" by my comments. It is clear
from your email that your work with people in the chair has integrity,
purpose and effectiveness - I don't dispute the efficacy of using
chairwork to teach Alexander's principles. Of course it works -
Alexander spread his entire work doing just that. I would be a fool to
try to argue against it as a valid methodology of teaching this work.
My point is not so much against chairwork, as it is for other
possibilities.
***
Once upon a time there were four woman - granny, mother and a friend
watching daughter cutting off the sides of a beef to put it in the
oven. "Why are you doing that?" the friend asked the daughter, who
replied "Oh, that's what my Mum always did." So the friend turned to
the mother and asked her "Why did you cut off the sides of the beef?"
And Mum replied: "Because that's what my mother always did." So
finally the friend turns to the grandmother and asks her "Why did you
cut off the sides of the beef?" To which the grandmother replies: "Oh
I had to. The oven we had was too small to fit it."
***
If you had the Olympic team of judo - would you train them all in
chairwork? And if so - why? Do you believe you can't do everything you
wrote below by simply exploring the specific co-ordinations these men
and woman are occupied with every day in their judo practice? I know a
group of actors who were "taught" the Alexander Technique and every
session they were all told to lie in semi-supine and... well, I wasn't
there so I don't know what was done. But it basically gives me the
creeps when I hear stories like that.
Frankly I believe that a lot of teachers continue with chairwork not
because of any powerful pedagogical arguments in its favour, but
simply because they don't know what else to do. Faced with a
professional opera singer, my guess is that many teachers would shy
away from a rigourous analysis of the specific activities and needs of
that person while singing, for the simple reason is that they were not
trained with the ability to do so. It's the percentage thing that
troubles me, not the actual fact of chairwork.
It's fine to do chairwork, and yes - it can be powerful and effective.
If it works for you, go ahead. But I doubt I could have built a
thriving business in Japan on the back of chairwork. And anecdotally,
it seems there are a lot of other folks in the Alexander community
finding it hard these days to make a living and I have to ask - why is
that? Could it be that our pedagogical approach leaves some people a
little mystified and lacking confidence to practise on their own? Or
do they just get bored after awhile?
I don't know is the truth. If you want to understand my position
better, I wrote about it in the Lugano Congress Papers "Teaching
Technology" and the previous Oxford Congress Papers in "A Tale of Two
Pedagogies". It is something I have been considering since I first
trained as an Alexander teacher in the 1970's, and challenged the then
prevailing notion that this work can not be taught in groups. Oh
really? Who said that? Your grandmother?
I hope you can understand my point - I have every respect for you as a
colleague, my only wish is to develop our ideas of teaching method. In
my opinion, they are due for a rehaul.
On Sun24/May/09, at Sun 24 May 4:49 AM, Chris Rapley wrote:
> Hello Jeremy, Joe and all on the list,
>
> I'm not sure what lies behind a criticism of chair work and to be-
> little
> this surprises me and I must say makes me want to make some kind of
> response. Chair work is just a very useful way of examining the use
> of the
> self in a movement that we all are forced to carry out in one way or
> another. We have to get in and out of chairs don't we? Maybe you
> don't use
> chairs in Japan? Sitting and standing underlie so much of what we do.
>
> Why is there any need to criticise chair work? For me it's not just
> an old
> paradigm. It's a very useful way of engaging in the business of
> recoordination and coming to understand the nature and experience of
> reactivity within ourself. There is so much that is going on in this
> ordinary everyday act. And all of it "Wrong" and harmful. An
> experience of
> achieving inhibition and a measure of good conscious control in this
> act is
> spectacularly different to almost any other activity. It is a very
> strong
> stimulus to react how we always react. And there does seem to be a
> rather
> unique neuromuscular engagement getting in and out of the chair.
>
> It engages the self in a journey of discovery of the over-excited
> nervous
> system, a fundamentally wrong acquired, learned pattern of use.
> Balance in
> standing on two legs can be changed fundamentally through this
> movement. It
> is so VALUABLE. Learning to sit in comfort, with little or no strain
> is
> worth having. So too is learning to take responsibility for oneself
> in an
> apparently simple but actually quite difficult act and to promote in
> oneself
> conditions of self-improvement. Chair work is very beneficial.
>
> I don't understand any belittling - it doesn't really matter
> particularly
> what we work at in Alexander lessons. There is a wide range of
> movement and
> underlying everything is our habitual reactivity. As a teacher I
> find chair
> work of immense benefit as a learning/ teaching process. I don't
> expect all
> teachers of the AT to work the same - why should we? I work with
> movement
> and it is not limited to just chair work. What does it matter what
> percentage it forms?
>
> Helping someone to stand on their own two feet in balance without
> stiffening
> requires a lot of recoordination work - at least in my experience as a
> teacher. Of course that is not the sum total of the Alexander
> Technique.
> There is a lot of learning achievable from chair work.
>
> Walter Carrington described some of the value of chair work in one
> of those
> great books of his talks published by Mornum Time Press. He waxed
> lyrical
> about it - sorry that I don't have the books to hand right now to
> find the
> quotes. But I would say "It's not what we do, but the way that we do
> it" and
> It's barking up a wrong tree to criticise chair work.
>
> Getting into a chair with good use requires learning to fall without
> fear.
> Gaining a good control without stiffening. Learning to go up whilst
> moving
> downwards. Learning to direct oneself in a familiar activity in a
> fundamentally unfamiliar way. Discovering how we are supposed to
> work. That
> brilliant folding mechanism that we have - that everyone just about
> pulls
> down to achieve. Learning to be present and to use oneself in a way
> that
> decreases the rate of deterioration. Not a worthless thing to work
> with at
> all, in my view. And that's just getting into the chair. Learn to
> overcome
> reactivity in that act, and getting out of the chair, and you begin
> to learn
> that you can choose to gradually overcome reactivity and misuse
> through a
> conscious application and awareness.
>
> There are many other activities that can be and no doubt are used by
> Alexander teachers - but I would argue that there are not many that
> present
> quite the challenge as chair work.
>
> Since when did we stop sitting and standing in the 21st century?? We
> sit we
> stand , we walk , we talk, we think, we sing, we play music - most
> of these
> are done from some sort of sitting or standing state.
>
> With a smile and a friendly poke!
>
> Chris Rapley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alex...@googlegroups.com [mailto:alex...@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf
> Of Jeremy Chance
> Sent: 23 May 2009 10:16
> To: Alextech Alextech-List
> Subject: [alextech-list] Re: Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
>
>
David Moore - alexanderschool.edu.au
I've just finished a lesson of chair and table work with a man with
Parkinson's disease. It's an ideal way to work with him and for him to learn
to have some control over his nervous system.
If I work with someone with a voice problem or who is a singer I need to
analyse what he is doing with himself when he uses his voice as part of his
overall pattern of coordination and, just as Alexander did with himself
working with the act of vocalizing is the best way to work. Chairwork
without attention to the use of the voice is ineffective teaching in this
case.
In training teachers my aim is for them to develop the tools to work in a
variety of ways which are appropriate for the person and situation. They
should be able to work with people individually or in groups. They should be
able to do a table turn or chair work. They should be able to give very
definite and clear directions through their hands, and they should be able
to engage a person's thinking so that they can generate their own inhibition
and direction with no or little hands-on. And they should know in which
situation it is best to use which way of working.
If teachers are trained only in chair and table work I am afraid that they
do not get any experience in analyzing manner of use outside of this rather
restricted activity.
I am all for chairwork AND a whole range of other possibilities.
David Moore
School for F.M. Alexander Studies
330 St Georges Road (map)
North Fitzroy, VIC 3068
Phone 61 3 9486 5900
alexanderschool.edu.au
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.37/2130 - Release Date: 05/23/09
07:00:00
MJULIOV
I didn't follow closely this thread, so I don't know what is the
relation of Jeremy's and David messages with the thread's subject.
Anyway, here are my comments.
> Frankly I believe that a lot of teachers continue with chairwork not
> because of any powerful pedagogical arguments in its favour, but
> simply because they don't know what else to do.
>
I believe there is actually a powerful argument in favour of chairwork.
Here are some quotes from Use of the Self:
"When the golfer starts to make his stroke, he brings to the
act the same habitual use of his mechanisms that he brings to
ALL HIS ACTIVITIES"
"... his faulty habitual use which, as we have just explained, is the
dominating influence in WHATEVER he tries to do."
From the above, the use of oneself is also brought into the act of
getting out of a chair.
If you agree with this, I will ask you a question:
When dealing with a pupil's use, and when dealing with one's own use, is
it easier to deal with a so to speak "neutral" activity (like chairwork)
or with an activity which has has a deep emotional value?
Let's say that a professional golfer comes for lessons because he is
having difficulties with his swing, or an actor that has lost his voice,
etc, etc.
Those activities are not just one of their activities, they are at the
same time their way of living, or a life-long interest, etc.
Do you believe it will be easier for a pupil to abandon the habits he
developed while trying to cope with his difficulties on those emotional
"charged" activities or on a "neutral" one?
I know, Marjorie Barstow used and Jeremy follows that aproach of "in
the activity" teaching.
This is far more interesting, specially if you are teaching in groups,
than sitting down and coming up. The results are IMMEDIATELY noticeable
by the own person and by the audience.
I believe that the "activity" paradigm is well suited for workshops but
not for serious learning of the technique.
The advantage of getting immediate results - that people can so to speak
take home- is at the same time it's greatest disadvantage.
> If teachers are trained only in chair and table work I am afraid that
they
> do not get any experience in analyzing manner of use outside of this
rather
> restricted activity.
Probably you are right. But maybe you need to be a musician to
appreciate manner of use in singing.
I.e. you need to specialize in a particular field.
Regards,
Julio
Catherine Kettrick
Julio said:
I believe that the "activity" paradigm is well suited for workshops but
> not for serious learning of the technique.
The seriousness or not of a lesson has nothing to do with how many people
are in the room. The seriousness has to do with the intent of the pupil and
teacher.
And no, I do not start anyone immediately in an "activity" e.g. doing a golf
swing. I always start with something simpler.
I think there is a huge misconception about this work, that it takes a Long
Time to learn, and that you have to have hours and hours or years and years
before you learn anything, or before you can apply it on your own. My
students begin applying what they learn in the first lesson. They report
back on subsequent lessons that they have improved how they do different
activities. Are they "perfect"? No. Do they have more to learn? Yes. Do
they become more skilled the more they practice (with or without a teacher)?
Yes. But anyone can learn the basics of this technique in half an hour.
And be able to apply them.
Catherine
David M Mills
Just to be clear, Jeremy is not arguing against chair work. So
arguments of their value miss his point. He is arguing against
restricting ourselves to chairwork. I would go farther to argue against
the tendency to identify AT with it - to claim that chair or table work
are the only real, of as you say "serious" work. This side thread began
when someone took Jeremy's point to be "dismissive" of chairwork (he has
tried to assure all that this was not what he meant to do). So let us
not be equally dismissive of work with other activities. To argue that
getting in an out of a chair are just as valid activities as any and
then to argue that working with other activities is fine in a workshop
setting but not for "serious learning of the technique" is circular at
least. No, it is not necessary to be a musician to appreciate a
musician's manner of use. In fact, it can be helpful Not to be. It is
not musical technique we are concerned with in an Alexander lesson. It
is the Alexander Technique.
To address Julio's question, for me it is not "easier" to work with one
activity o another. "Neutral" activities, such as simply noticing how
one is sitting or reaching forward to pick up a cup from a table are
fine introductory experiences. Then going on to such common things as
standing up or walking is a natural extension. From that point dealing
with an activity that the person is deeply involved with, whether it's
golf, singing or knitting, "gets their attention" in a more powerful
way. Rather than thinking of these other activities as radically
different - and more difficult - than sitting, the key point here is
that they are not significantly different in relation to what matters in
learning the Technique. The relationship of the use of the Alexander
Technique to any of these activities is the same. In practice, I often
shift back and forth between working in the chair and working with a
more personal activity (just as I shift between using my hands a lot or
hardly at all). The key point in "serious learning of the technique" is
whether the person is learning the technique - and how to Use it in the
context if their own actions. That is the only take-home result that
matters.
David
Jeremy Chance
MJULIOV
In my view Chairwork, IS the Alexander Technique.
Take it or leave it.
(I mean the Alexander Technique, not my point of view)
This is not about fundamentalism or dogmatism, it's about recognizing
human weakness and the need of sticking to principles, in order to
change lifetime habits.
So yes, Marjorie Barstow believed chairwork its too difficult or boring
or not suited to group lessons and decided to change that.
She adapted the Alexander Technique to the american mentality. I
believe, with due respect, that she did a great mistake.
Regards,
Julio
Catherine Kettrick
Whatever you believe about the Alexander Technique, please don't interpret
Marj's actions and decisions through the lens of your belief. You don't
know what she believed about chair work.
Catherine
----- Original Message -----
From: "MJULIOV" <mju...@gmail.com>
To: "'Alextech Alextech-List'" <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [alextech-list] Re: Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
>
Catherine Kettrick
If you believe that "In my view Chairwork, IS the Alexander Technique, you
need to re-read the first chapter and the beginning of the second chapter of
Use of the Self.
Catherine
----- Original Message -----
From: "MJULIOV" <mju...@gmail.com>
To: "'Alextech Alextech-List'" <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:00 AM
>
alun thomas
I don't know how anyone can say that chairwork IS the Alexander Technique.
Alexander 'Technique' is here under your nose - wherever you happen to be right now!
I'd guess that chairwork, though, provides more than enough grist to entertain teachers' mills for a very long time!
It's question of skill. By all accounts, Marj Barstow was very skilled indeed, teaching in her way. In lesser hands, her approach might be much less effective.
My hunch is that chairwork is simply too difficult, requires developing manual skill, and is challenging to the self- reflective patience i.e people eventually get bored by it, owing perhaps to a lack of clarity in what is happening to the pupil under their hands.
And, the hands don't start off by being that great, so it's tempting to by-pass the chair when that improvement seems to wane; but hands DO get better if you work consistently. Then chairwork sets the teacher at a great advantage, I'd suggest. I'm sure Marj Barstow was also able to use the chair to great effect! (Though I can't be sure of that fact)
It might also be that some teachers get tired of thinking about themselves, which of course is a necessity for chairwork- type teaching. That is understandable and, that being the case, activity work provide some relief from that perhaps. That said, it's possibly the case that if the teacher is very skilled in their own application of inhibition/ direction in life, it is the basis for any type of good teaching.
In my teaching, I am a great believer in the chair, though. When my chair work palls, then it's time to reconsider what it is that I'm up to. It's a kind of reality check, an index for my real teaching ability. Still, I enjoy a variety of games etc that don't involve the chair, that I believe are helpful in getting across the meaning of inhibition, direction and so on. In my experience it is more than helpful to enlist people to respect the work in the chair.
Warm wishes,
Alun
(Central London and Windsor, Berkshire)
Bloomsbury Alexander Centre
80a Southampton Row
London WC1B 4BB
07817 091385
(Holborn / Russell Sq. Tube)
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:00:59 -0300
> From: mju...@gmail.com
> To: alex...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [alextech-list] Re: Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
>
>
Eva Fenrich
just my humble two cents:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:00:59AM -0300, MJULIOV wrote:
> In my view Chairwork, IS the Alexander Technique.
If you were right, and Chairwork IS the Alexander Technique, what was
it that Mr. Alexander developed for himself BEFORE he was teaching
others (i.e. what is described in UoS "Development of a technique")?
Wasn't he in the first place developing something that he applied to
the ACTIVITY of reciting?
> Take it or leave it.
> (I mean the Alexander Technique, not my point of view)
>
> This is not about fundamentalism or dogmatism, it's about recognizing
> human weakness and the need of sticking to principles, in order to
> change lifetime habits.
Why would working with activities be less "sticking to principles" than
working with the "activities" of sitting, getting in and out of a
chair, etc?
I don't know about you, but I tend to believe that "principles" are
things like Inhibition, Directions etc that can be APPLIED to any
activity... and an activity is not a principle...
> So yes, Marjorie Barstow believed chairwork its too difficult or boring
> or not suited to group lessons and decided to change that.
Somehow I can't believe that working with activities has much to
do with finding chairwork boring...
I'm not lucky enough to have met the woman so I can't say anything
about why she would use one way of teaching or another, but I seem
to have seen some video of her on youtube that looked suspiciously like
chairwork to me ;-)
Chairwork and/or "activities" - I personally can see value in both
approaches to teaching and learning... as people say in Martial
Arts: "There are different ways up the same mountain".
Regards
Eva
(long term pupil and 1st year trainee)
--
****************************************************************************
Eva Fenrich
FachschaftsvertreterInnenversammlung
Universitaet Stuttgart
e...@faveve.uni-stuttgart.de
****************************************************************************
Non quia difficilia sunt non audemus, sed quia non audemus difficilia sunt.
L.A. Seneca
MJULIOV
> If you believe that "In my view Chairwork, IS the Alexander Technique, you
> need to re-read the first chapter and the beginning of the second chapter of
> Use of the Self.
himself on a mirror.
If that is what you mean, answering Alun't message at the same time I
would say that "it takes too for a tango".
What I mean, is that the AT done by oneself without a teacher, or in
groups, or whatever ... is just not the same thing.
A teacher MUST BE there, not only to "teach", or to put his hands,
although that is of course necessary at the beginning.
He is not only to provide you with a different point of view than your
own, although that is also necessary.
But in a wider perspective, his being there changes the equation, in an
analogous way than a dancing partner changes the equation in a tango.
That is what I believe.
Regards,
Julio
Robert Rickover
"So yes, Marjorie Barstow believed chairwork its too difficult or boring
> or not suited to group lessons and decided to change that."
Later, she relented somewhat and towards the end of her teaching, when the largest "group" she would work with was 2 students, it was almost entirely chairwork - but chairwork unlike any I experienced elsewhere.
This whole discussion reminds me of what Marjorie Barlow (not Barstow) reported FM used to say to his trainees - I don't have the exact words at hand, but this is pretty close: "I want you to understand the purpose of what I am doing and then I want you to figure out your own way of doing it. I don't want a bunch of trained monkeys copying what I do."
Or, his words of advice to Ethel Webb who was about to embark on some teaching away from FM for the first time and asked his advice: "Now Ethel, whatever you do, don't do anything you've seen me do."
(Hopefully someone else can supply the exact quotes.)
Robert Rickover
MJULIOV
> If you were right, and Chairwork IS the Alexander Technique, what was
> it that Mr. Alexander developed for himself BEFORE he was teaching
> others (i.e. what is described in UoS "Development of a technique")?
> Wasn't he in the first place developing something that he applied to
> the ACTIVITY of reciting?
See my answer to Alun's message.
If you are right, why would FM develop his teaching around chairwork?
Wouldn't have been more logical to make pupils recite, the same as he did?
> Chairwork and/or "activities" - I personally can see value in both
> approaches to teaching and learning... as people say in Martial
> Arts: "There are different ways up the same mountain".
I like metaphors.
I did never say, however, that there is only one way up.
What I have said, is that the AT way is more or less, through chairwork.
There are different ways, but each of them is ... DIFFERENT!
And of course, there isn't just one mountain, there are of course many
different mountains.
> Why would working with activities be less "sticking to principles" than
> working with the "activities" of sitting, getting in and out of a
> chair, etc?
There are too many reasons. But if you want one, I'd say that the AT
should not be approached with an end-gaining goal in mind.
Of course the pupil comes and pays for lessons to gain something, but
this attitude must change over time, through learning something that has
no intrinsic value by itself.
Regards,
Julio
MJULIOV
Regards,
Julio
Eva Fenrich
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 04:56:25PM -0300, MJULIOV wrote:
> > Why would working with activities be less "sticking to principles" than
> > working with the "activities" of sitting, getting in and out of a
> > chair, etc?
>
> There are too many reasons. But if you want one, I'd say that the AT
> should not be approached with an end-gaining goal in mind.
"end-gaining" goal in mind, but I would also think there are good
reasons to approach it with a "goal" or "end" in mind.
If Alexander had an "end" in mind why should students and teachers
not have an "end" in mind when applying his Technique?
I mean of you read p. 45 of the Gollancz paperback edition of UoS you can
find that he was definitely working for an "end":
"Supposing that the 'end' I decided to work for ...."
> Of course the pupil comes and pays for lessons to gain something, but
> this attitude must change over time, through learning something that has
> no intrinsic value by itself.
So am I getting this right? What you are saying is that pupils
should learn something from chairwork without say "wanting to get
better at getting out of a chair" or some such?
Or is it more the fact that the student isn't very much interested
in sitting and getting up, so it might be easier to work with this as
the student doesn't have too many preconceived ideas about an "end"?
On the other hand "learning something that has no intrinsic value by
itself" could be a good tool to pre-select the "right" pupils/students
- if they get too bored or can't appy what they learn to "real life" they
leave and make place for the "true students" ;-)
Now what if the "traditional procedures" were something else? What
would you say about kneeling, squatting, or any other simple, basic
movement?
Is this in your opinion the Alexander Technique or is it something
else? I seem to remember that you maintain(ed?) the website and some
youtube videos of a certain teacher that seems to use kneeling as a
procedure....
(as I haven't had any lessons with this teacher, I can't comment in
any way if he is a "good" or a "bad" teacher)....
BTW: I'm not trying to bash "traditional" lessons in any way. I've
learned a lot this way, still enjoy "chairwork lessons" and had my
"aha-moments" in both types of lessons...
(if you can really say that they are two distinct types of lessons,
which I believe they are not really... in real life the line between
different approaches is far more blurry).
Regards
Eva
Halvard Heggdal
If you say that: "Chairwork IS the Alexander Technique" you make that old
stupid mistake of confusing the Alexander technique with the means of
teaching the technique.
I hope we one day can get passed that point.
Cheers
Halvard
> > > (I mean the Alexander Technique, not my point of view)
> > >
> > > This is not about fundamentalism or dogmatism, it's about recognizing
> > > human weakness and the need of sticking to principles, in order to
> > > change lifetime habits.
> > >
> > >
boring
> > > or not suited to group lessons and decided to change that.
> > >
David M Mills
I'm sorry if the tone of the following is more blunt than my usual. But
there are many people on this list who only know about various aspects
of this work from what they hear on the list . However we may argue
about details or interpretations, I think we owe it to those people to
get our facts straight.
MJULIOV wrote:
> Why shouldn't I?
>
>
I find this response unhelpful and disrespectful. I wonder what
principles you are sticking too with such a response. But to take your
question at face value - you shouldn't because it is arrogant and
presumptuous to suppose that you know what someone else believes or why
they choose to do what they do - or even to claim to characterize and
judge what they do based on no actual experience of it. I had been
waiting to craft a serious reply to the issues you raised, but I am
frankly puzzled. You presume to tell us what IS [or is not] the
Alexander Technique. You tell us what Ms Barstow believed, what she did
and why - and you tell us ("with due respect") that she was wrong to do
so. I worked with Marj for over 20 years and I can tell you directly
that you don't know what you are talking about.
David
Catherine Kettrick
----- Original Message -----From: Robert RickoverSent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:35 PMSubject: [alextech-list] Re: Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
Jeremy Chance
"...Chairwork, IS the Alexander Technique."?
You've got to be kidding, right?
Anne Johnson
Hello All,
This chair work discussion brings these thoughts to light:
“Elisabeth Walker’s advice to us was touching and simple:
‘Collect the truth into yourselves. Don’t try to be like anyone else, or like FM. Be yourself as a teacher.’
p.179, Forward and Away Memoirs, E. Walker 2008 “
It is also interesting to read about FM and his training course in “Personally Speaking” with Walter Carrington interviewed by Sean Carey, 2nd ed. 2001.
Basically, Carrington said that Alexander left the teachers to figure out on their own how to “teach” after he got their use functioning as he wished. Carrington then goes on to speak about how each teacher then developed their unique style of teaching the principles out of who they were. After FM died, it seems that Carrington created a clear structure of training (absent in his own training) that addressed how to teach the technique to others. This came out of who Carrington was and his great ability and need to communicate this work in clear, straight forward and accessible ways.
Each graduate used the principles out of their unique character.
I don’t believe that it is fair to say that Marjory Barstow “adapted the Alexander Technique to the american mentality” quoted from Julio.
She taught from who she was and yes, being an American was one part of who she was.
My own opinion is that if we are teaching the Alexander technique, we as teachers have a responsibility to let our students know its history AND experience the tools that Alexander developed. Chair work does not exclusively define nor should it limit the technique, but is a rich learning experience-as long as the teacher puts it into a context that the student can comprehend and value. Perhaps some teachers with bad opinions of chair work had teachers that did not effectively communicate the purpose of chair work and its usefulness in life?
Anne Johnson
Michael P Mossey
> Julio - are you really serious?
>
> "...Chairwork, IS the Alexander Technique."?
>
> You've got to be kidding, right?
>
> cheerfully
>
To Julio and list---
Julio, are you a certified teacher of the Alexander Technique?
Entering the Feldenkrais Professional Training Program has made me more
conscious that I have to be careful about claiming I understand something if I
haven't trained in it. I have an interest in Alexander Technique and benefited
greatly from my 80 or so lessons, but can I claim to **understand** AT? I
wouldn't. Not any more.
I have noticed that in almost every field, some people are loudly critical of
other fields, even though they haven't trained in them. In the Feldenkrais
world, a few people are critical of physical therapists, doctors, and
psychotherapists. I have enough experience with good doctors and psychotherapy
to know their claims are bunk. They haven't **trained** in those fields. For
example, let's say they are critical of psychiatry. They've never trained as a
psychiatrist. They don't understand the value of it. Is any field perfect? Of
course not. But I lean toward seeing every field of study as having tremendous
value. More and more I hesitate to dismiss something I haven't studied in depth.
Because I've had to eat my words often enough to cause serious indigestion if I
keep it up. :)
-Mike
Franis Engel
Greetings Eva,
Thanks for your contributions. Wasn't sure how it happened, but somehow your emails ended up in my junk mail folder from yahoo mail. So if people didn't respond to your posts, perhaps sending a copy like this will help get it on board with the rest of the discussion.
My comments:
Thankfully amazed that more of this sort of conflict hasn't divided our Alexander Technique teaching community in the past. The fact that this has NOT happened is to the credit of the nature of our work. Up until now, Alexander teaching has not EVER gone through an ideological split or "falling out" that pretty much every other ideology has experienced. We have managed to welcome and encompass many different styles of teaching. (Some of which have been quite a bit more far off accepted norms than Marj Barstow's style of originating the "activity model.")
That being the case in the last hundred years or so, perhaps Julio might think about the ramifications of possibly creating an ideological rift with his continuing insistence of defining what "IS right" and what is "not right"?
From what I remember, part of the ethics membership in the various Alexander Technique professional societies was a promise to not denigrate or even rate the teaching quality of other members. Specifically, some experienced Alexander Teachers have even objected to being assigned the status of "master" or "seniority."
Perhaps if you are an AT teaching member of one of these societies, you might review the agreement and issue an appropriate apology?
If you are not yet a member of one of these societies after completing your course requirements, joining one of the AT professional associations that included this agreement might be difficult, given your apparent attitude.
Thanks,
Franis Engel
> From: Eva Fenrich <e...@faveve.uni-stuttgart.de>
> Subject: [alextech-list] Re: Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 11:42 AM
>
> Julio,
> just my humble two cents:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:00:59AM -0300, MJULIOV wrote:
> Technique.
>
> Technique, what was
> it that Mr. Alexander developed for himself BEFORE he was
> teaching
> others (i.e. what is described in UoS "Development of a
> technique")?
> Wasn't he in the first place developing something that he
> applied to
> the ACTIVITY of reciting?
>
> > (I mean the Alexander Technique, not my point of
> view)
> >
> > This is not about fundamentalism or dogmatism, it's
> about recognizing
> > human weakness and the need of sticking to principles,
> in order to
> > change lifetime habits.
>
> principles" than
> working with the "activities" of sitting, getting in and
> out of a
> chair, etc?
> "principles" are
> things like Inhibition, Directions etc that can be APPLIED
> to any
> activity... and an activity is not a principle...
>
> difficult or boring
> > or not suited to group lessons and decided to change
> that.
>
> much to
> do with finding chairwork boring...
> I'm not lucky enough to have met the woman so I can't say
> anything
> about why she would use one way of teaching or another, but
> I seem
> to have seen some video of her on youtube that looked
> suspiciously like
> chairwork to me ;-)
>
>
> Chairwork and/or "activities" - I personally can see value
> in both
> approaches to teaching and learning... as people say in
> Martial
> Arts: "There are different ways up the same mountain".
>
> Regards
> Eva
> (long term pupil and 1st year trainee)
>
Lynne Cartlidge
Julio
If you think it’s OK for you to make assertions about another person based on ignorance of that person then I’m not sure all that chair work has helped you learn how to use reasoning processes.
Mind you, I’m making an assumption.
Don’t know what level you were at when you started.
Lynne
--
Lynne Cartlidge ITM
The Alexander Studio
75 Kimberley Road
Penylan
Cardiff
CF23 5DL
Tel: 029 20637200
www.lynnecartlidge.co.uk
MJULIOV
> If Alexander had an "end" in mind why should students and teachers
> not have an "end" in mind when applying his Technique?
> I mean of you read p. 45 of the Gollancz paperback edition of UoS you can
> find that he was definitely working for an "end":
> "Supposing that the 'end' I decided to work for ...."
Maybe it's because Alexander wrote that from the point of view of the
end-gainer he was at that time when he sought to improve his reciting.
> On the other hand "learning something that has no intrinsic value by
> itself" could be a good tool to pre-select the "right" pupils/students
> - if they get too bored or can't appy what they learn to "real life" they
> leave and make place for the "true students"
I guess most if not all of the students come for lessons with an
end-gaining attitude: with a preconceived idea of what they want, what
it means to learn, etc. (there is a very nice description about this in
CCCI)
It's not easy to be a teacher ...
> Now what if the "traditional procedures" were something else? What
> would you say about kneeling, squatting, or any other simple, basic
> movement?
> Is this in your opinion the Alexander Technique or is it something
> else? I seem to remember that you maintain(ed?) the website and some
> youtube videos of a certain teacher that seems to use kneeling as a
> procedure....
Yes, Noam Renen.
Noam doesn't teach kneeling nor squatting, he uses a modified version of
chairwork without chair, knelt on the floor.
The bio-mechanics of most of the body's movement is the same as in
chairwork, only the feet are not involved.
He told me he uses this with beginning students, because it's easier.
Although I believe he also does it for a change, when the student is
"too" focused on getting up and sitting down.
But note that the above has nothing to do with some sort of "standard
procedures" (particularly in the case of squatting) that you must do
right in order to get a black belt, or a certificate of something.
Best regards,
Julio
MJULIOV
FM said in one of his teaching aphorisms that the lot is within just one
evolution, and he most probably meant chairwork.
I believe that the other posts I wrote make my point a bit more clear.
Regards,
Julio
MJULIOV
Don't put too much value on a certificate.
Who gave FM a certificate?
And on the other hand, there are lots of certified idiots out there ...
Everything is relative.
I am glad to know you are now more careful in your claims, and seem
doing fine with your Feldenkrais training.
Regards,
Julio
Gmail
No - wait!
On Fri29/May/09, at Fri 29 May 10:14 PM, MJULIOV wrote:
> Noam doesn't teach kneeling nor squatting, he uses a modified
> version of
> chairwork without chair, knelt on the floor.
The Alexander Technique IS modified chairwork without the chair.
Have I got it right now Julio?
cheerfully
Jeremy
MJULIOV
I am making assertions about her teaching, not about her personal life.
In that sense, I feel I have all the right to say whatever I please.
If I am wrong, you may correct me.
Regards,
Julio
MJULIOV
Is there anything in my posts threatening for you ?
(that is what I feel, behind your stupid cinicism)
Regards,
Julio
Michael Mossey
MJULIOV wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Don't put too much value on a certificate.
I put value in **doing the training**. I take it this is your answer: you
haven't done the training.
>
> Who gave FM a certificate?
FM was an expert in his own method. If you want to start the Julio Method,
I'm sure you'll be an expert in it without a certificate. If other people
want to claim they understand the Julio Method, personally I would like to
see they did a formal study with you.
> And on the other hand, there are lots of certified idiots out there ...
>
> Everything is relative.
>
> I am glad to know you are now more careful in your claims, and seem
> doing fine with your Feldenkrais training.
Thank you. Yes, it's extremely valuable to me and a very good growth process.
I put value in **doing the training** even if you disagree philosophically
with the teacher (which I often do) because you are formally entering into
someone else's thought process. Teachers like Alexander and Feldenkrais
didn't want us to copy them like automatons, but I do think we need to
start the process by being willing to suspend our own mindset and enter
into theirs. And keep it up for hundreds of hours, until we start to get
comfortable and no longer want to flee to our usual territory.
I think that if we are being honest, we'll find value there. I think that
if *anyone* announces to the world, "I've got a discovery and it really
helped me", in all likelihood they have discovered something truly valuable.
The question for me is: is that thing they've discovered complete, or does
it need balancing by other principles?
Regard,
Mike
MJULIOV
> I find this response unhelpful and disrespectful. I wonder what
> principles you are sticking too with such a response.
> But to take your question at face value - you shouldn't because it is arrogant and
> presumptuous to suppose that you know what someone else believes or why
> they choose to do what they do - or even to claim to characterize and
> judge what they do based on no actual experience of it.
Regards,
Julio
David M Mills wrote:
David M Mills
Julio,
>
> I wasn't disrespectful at all. I only asked Catherine to clarify her post.
>
>
If indeed you were only asking Catherine to "clarify her post" I would
have found it more (as I said) helpful, if you had asked that.
I was commenting on how the response appeared to me. I am certainly
willing to accept that you did not intend to be disrespectful. But to
dismiss the validity of my perception as you do leads me do feel, well
not respected. Perhaps we have different meanings for respect.
> You say I am being arrogant only because I don't think like you.
>
Too be precise, I did not say You were being arrogant. I said to claim
to know what someone else believes or why they do what they do is an
arrogant thing to do.
You are now telling me Why I said what you thought I said. It appears
that you entirely missed my point.
There have been a number of interesting issues raised in this discussion
and I would be much more interested in your views on why you believe
what you believe about the technique or about teaching. I'm not looking
for any fights here (I have better things to do, as I suppose you do).
So I am being sincere when I say that I am much more curious about what
You think, and about the experiences that it is based on than I am in
your telling me what Other people think.
Yes, respectfully,
David
Don White
Thank you Julio.
You have convinced me of the only sensible course of action. I am going
to block your postings
Bye...
Don.
-----Original Message-----
From: alex...@googlegroups.com [mailto:alex...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of MJULIOV
Sent: 29 May 2009 16:15
To: Alextech Alextech-List
Subject: [alextech-list] Re: Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
sraj
Regards
Halvard Heggdal
By saying 'the lot is within just one evolution' (or something like that) FM
was probably refering to hands on the back of a chair or maybe the whispered
ah. There is a small chance that it is the procedure of leaning back in the
chair (a position of mechanical advantage), but it is very unlikely that it
is ordinary chair-work because he would not have described that in terms of
'evolution'.
Regards
Halvard
----- Original Message -----
From: MJULIOV <mju...@gmail.com>
To: ja...@mac.com
Sent: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:25:18 -0300
Subject: [alextech-list] Re: Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
>
> Jeremy,
>
Jeremy Chance
Hi Julio,
I don't know how anyone can say that chairwork IS the Alexander Technique.
Alexander 'Technique' is here under your nose - wherever you happen to be right now!
I'd guess that chairwork, though, provides more than enough grist to entertain teachers' mills for a very long time!
It's question of skill. By all accounts, Marj Barstow was very skilled indeed, teaching in her way. In lesser hands, her approach might be much less effective.
My hunch is that chairwork is simply too difficult, requires developing manual skill, and is challenging to the self- reflective patience i.e people eventually get bored by it, owing perhaps to a lack of clarity in what is happening to the pupil under their hands.
And, the hands don't start off by being that great, so it's tempting to by-pass the chair when that improvement seems to wane; but hands DO get better if you work consistently. Then chairwork sets the teacher at a great advantage, I'd suggest. I'm sure Marj Barstow was also able to use the chair to great effect! (Though I can't be sure of that fact)
It might also be that some teachers get tired of thinking about themselves, which of course is a necessity for chairwork- type teaching. That is understandable and, that being the case, activity work provide some relief from that perhaps. That said, it's possibly the case that if the teacher is very skilled in their own application of inhibition/ direction in life, it is the basis for any type of good teaching.
In my teaching, I am a great believer in the chair, though. When my chair work palls, then it's time to reconsider what it is that I'm up to. It's a kind of reality check, an index for my real teaching ability. Still, I enjoy a variety of games etc that don't involve the chair, that I believe are helpful in getting across the meaning of inhibition, direction and so on. In my experience it is more than helpful to enlist people to respect the work in the chair.
Warm wishes,
Alun
Alun Thomas M.STAT GRNCMViolinist / Teacher F.M. AlexanderTechnique
(Central London and Windsor, Berkshire)
Bloomsbury Alexander CentreBristol House
80a Southampton Row
London WC1B 4BB
07817 091385
(Holborn / Russell Sq. Tube)
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:00:59 -0300
> From: mju...@gmail.com
> To: alex...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [alextech-list] Re: Decision-making Tires Out Your Brain?
>
>
> David,
> In my view Chairwork, IS the Alexander Technique.
> Take it or leave it.
> (I mean the Alexander Technique, not my point of view)
>
> This is not about fundamentalism or dogmatism, it's about recognizing
> human weakness and the need of sticking to principles, in order to
> change lifetime habits.
>
>
> So yes, Marjorie Barstow believed chairwork its too difficult or boring
> or not suited to group lessons and decided to change that.
>
> She adapted the Alexander Technique to the american mentality. I
> believe, with due respect, that she did a great mistake.
>
> Regards,
> Julio
>
>
alun thomas
Thank you for that ....I can see that this whole subject is quite a stimulus for you, obviously. It's a bit of a challenging tone in your response there Jeremy ..... makes me wonder what your real motives are for giving up the chair. From what you say, and perhaps the way that you say, your approach does, indeed sound far from easy.....
Aside from that, and before you set a challenge to me, its not beyond possible that, should my teaching work require it, your challenge in mind, that is how I would proceed, though it might be best to listen to what I said and not what you thought I implied. I did not say, as you suggest, that application work is 'easy' or that I was tied the chair and all the baggage that you falsely attribute to it. To rate one approach or another as 'easy, however is to my mind, quite puerile.
And, to represent myself accurately, I did say in my post that I do work with games, including hands off work when it seems appropriate, as an adjunct to the chair. As a regular giver of workshops to groups including (my own 'specialism'), musicians, I'm to be found dealing with people who all in some way or other conspire against themselves. But to get back to the main thrust of your reply: Is the chair a safe haven? Not necessarily. Can 'application work' provide a safe haven? Possibly. Is sitting in Zazen a safe haven? Is playing a handful of violin concertos for a career a safe haven? Is painting the same group of objects (Morandi) in different arrangements, for a whole lifetime, a safe haven? No, not necessarily.
By analysing (as you put it) the reasons a pupil has for an habitual problem in a certain situation, playing a huge repertoire, meditating on every single thought form that you produce, by investigating each single neurotic activity, each difficulty that we might indulge in-does this necessarily lead us to a better understanding of cause and effect, to enhanced artistic integrity or explain the background to the raft of psychological problems that most people suffer from time to time. Or, have a better understanding of ones art, be it teaching or whatever. No, I think, not at all.
And, is it your job as an Alexander teacher to analyse and find out why someone has a problem freezing in front of the photographer or having anger at the sight of your boss? How could you know what the real reasons were anyway - there are a huge number of reasons why people behave as they do-and good ones, at that. Why would you purport to know any better? And, given the hugely subjective nature of our experience, trivialise it with a few pointers by way of inhibition and direction, or any kind of means -whereby. At least in the chair it's possible to be in touch with something real and see what the conditions are that can really be changed.
Why deny yourself the chance to re-engage with chairwork or judge it one way or another? I get the impression that you have given yourself no choice in the matter. Why was it painful to give it up? I would suggest, gently, that it is because one can only generate a certain amount of verbiage when the main modus operandi is chairwork, and that perhaps some of us find it rather easy to replace facing facts with endless descriptions and 'analysis'. That, to my mind is a troubling habit. It's the feeling that we are doing something worthwhile, I suppose.
Furthermore, I don't see why the efficacy of 'chairwork' should be a function of time, especially ones length of time teaching using the thing! I don't doubt that you are a good teacher Jeremy, but I'm always mindful of our great and limitless capacity for self deception. Age and experience seems to be no bar to that fact in my experience.
My approach, anyway, does not imply, as you you seem to suggest a safe haven in any way. I am as intrigued as you are by the reasons people behave as they do and sometimes work in a way that might be seen as application work. I'm happy to talk to people about any problem they bring up.
Let's see, someone who has stiffens in front of a photographer. Your approach?
1 Try to explain why someone tries to put on an act in front of the camera. Explain why
it's often difficult and hopeless to try to be right or to feel right or to impress. Explain the whole business of end gaining. When did this first happen? Did you have any bad experiences with a photograher or with eating disorders or with self harm when you were younger? Can't now bear to be seen....
2 Then a diatribe about the excessively visual nature of our world and the dominance of the visual sense. Our rather conditioned ideas of what is permissable and the necessity of fitting in with some ideal. All unconscious assuptions! Oh, and the problem of comparison and competition. How we are judged by others and judge ourselves according to our ideas (real or imginary) about how the world works in this regard.
3 Encourage learning to accept ourselves by letting go of wanting to be right and directing ourselves to enable our full 'free' height to emerge along with better sensory acuity to notice at what point we start to pull down. Then we can face the problems addressed above.
4 After much soul searching, play some games to encourage the building up of freedom in front of the camera.
1 Take some photos without any film in the camera- notice how the stimulus is less potent - ie you dont stop breathing so easily.
2.Take some photos from very far away. (same response as above)
3 Keep directing and taking note of your surroundings.
4 Any hint of stiffening, go back to 3
5.Learn to take account of any distance between you and the camera or stimulus of any kind.
6 Have a discussion about how it really does not matter what happens to you in a photo or how you look. Is it only in certain kinds of shot that you feel uncomfortable or with people who you don't feel comfortable with anyway? Or only in landscape type situations?
7 1 hour later - perhaps ''you should just not have your photo taken - why do anything that makes you feel uncomfortable''.
8 After all, it's a childhood thing - being made to do something that we don't want to.
Or:
1 Work on someone in the chair, encourage the flexibilty in the torso, get the breathing working better and get the inhibition working by getting the pupil to let you move them etc.
2 Work with HOBC and show mechanical advantage and how that stimulates good breathing.
3 Try and catch your pupil out now and again and have a bit of fun with it. The patterns of stiffening will be the same ones in most other activities including having your photo taken. And it is easy to work with someone in a chair in front of you.
4 Before long, though how long is not certain, the pupil will be able to work with inhibition and direction effectively in whatever they want.
From my experience as a pupil, I loved the chair work that I had. It was a never ending discovery albeit with head scratching periods. What strikes me, looking back is how little 'application' work I did in the lessons. It did not however stop me from working out the application, myself. It's not very surprising, (and to wind up), that much of what I carry around when I'm playing the violin or riding my bike, or playing with my little daughter is there to be seen when I'm in a chair, or standing around one giving a lesson.
Warm regards,
Alun
(Central London and Windsor, Berkshire)
Bloomsbury Alexander Centre
80a Southampton Row
London WC1B 4BB
07817 091385
(Holborn / Russell Sq. Tube)
From: ja...@mac.com
To: alex...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [alextech-list] Re: Chairwork etc
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 04:06:09 +0900
Jeremy Chance
sraj
was coined by Dr. Barlow. His first book was published as 'The
Alexander Principle' in 1973. The same material was republished in
1990 as 'The Alexander Technique'. I am afraid, he built a powerful
brand and then destroyed it!
For those of you who may be depending on Dr. Barlow's book, I have a
word of caution.
... One idea strongly emphasised in the book is not to pull the head
back. Dr. Barlow based his conclusion on a large number of
photographic studies. While this idea could be correct, when a person
is correcting his posture on his own, he does not have a frame of
reference to decide whether his head is too much to the front or
towards the back. For the last six months or so I have been pulling my
head backwards and deriving much relief from it...
My comment should not be seen as a blanket crititicism of the book.
It's a great book, but we should look out for possible pitfalls.
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 31/05/2009, Franis Engel <franis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The term Alexander Technique was coined after Alexander's death.
>
> I'm sure lots of people would love to know exactly who was responsible for
> the name.
>
> Alexander himself called what he was doing more generally as "the work."
>
> Franis Engel
David M Mills
Introduction to "Use of the Self".and elsewhere. It's an easy step from
there to The Alexander Technique (especially when it had no other name).
David
PS: An old thought question of mine is - If for some reason we were no
longer allowed to call it the Alexander Technique, what would you call it?