: Is MSI the most important book ever written?
40 views
Skip to first unread message
sraj
May 18, 2012, 9:08:27 AM5/18/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Alexander writes the following in page 155 of MSI (Man's supreme inheritance)
... and the outcome will be a race of men and women who will outstrip their ancestors in every known sphere, and enter new spheres as yet undreamt of by the great majority of the civilized peoples of our time. The world will then make in one century greater progress in evolution towards a real civilization than it has made in the past three….
As far as I am aware, I have not come across a statement that resembles this in any other book that I have read, either religious, philosophical, literary or scientific! One thing is true, what Alexander dreamt about has not transpired; these words were written a hundred years back. Yet, what if Alexander’s dreams have not been realized due to our collective stupidity, after all a pioneer can only point the way, the followers must be intelligent enough to navigate the path and not fall into the first pit that they happen to come across. Let us assume for the moment that this indeed is the situation (we will make a separate critique of the book itself later, to find out its strengths and its weaknesses), for the moment let us assume that what Alexander dreamt about is attainable. If attainable, would it make the book, the most important book ever written?
We will make an intellectual journey to compare this book in an unbiased way, with religious, philosophical, literary and scientific books, that form the treasure house of human thought.
Regards,
Selvaraj
(To be continued)
Rex Alexander
May 18, 2012, 10:00:55 AM5/18/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Fri 18 May 2012, 8:47 pm
Actually, there some religions and ideologies which embrace the notion of highly evolved men and a "super race." Some of them, not very nice. This is, however, a highly intoxicating notion for some people. => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_race#See_also . Some New Agey approaches hold out the promise of, so called, "transcendence" and becoming an entirely new type of self, even a new type of being. Personally, in my opinion, I find this possibility highly unlikely any time in the foreseeable future.
Aloha,
Rex
Khon Kaen, Thailand
sraj
May 18, 2012, 10:32:10 AM5/18/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi Rex,
These ideas about 'highly evolved' men rests on creating very complex entities, based on complex ideas.
Alexander is talking of a simple issue that has major consequences - like driving out into the desert without first checking whether the gas tank is full!
Creating supermen:
Others ---------> complex ideas
Alexander ----------> simple idea ------------> major consequences
Regards,
Selvaraj
PS: What I was referring to: such ideas are not expressed in 'standard' religious, philosophical, literary and scientific texts.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech?hl=en.
Keith Bacon
May 18, 2012, 11:30:03 AM5/18/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi Selveraj,
are rather subtle.
A simple view is that AT changes you in a way you can only understand
when it has changed you. So it is not rational to start to learn it.
A more subtle view is that our own mind gives us a 'self' with views
of reality as foundations we need to operate in the world. Those
foundations are often wrong and the more unreleased stress reactions
we have accumulated the more wrong they are. AT changes parts of the
mind that 'hold' (or are attached to in buddhist terms) these beliefs
so is resisted subconsciously.
FMA's work is great but I believe FMA was not the first person to make
discoveries about somatic change and the problem of teaching. When I
realised people trained in AT found the work of others in the same
field as difficult to understand as laymen find FMA's work it was most
surprising.
For me the buddhist sutra's are great even though I understand only a
little of them.
The kundalini yoga manuals are also great for me. We don't know who
discovered the techniques in them or how many people were involved or
how old they are. But the simple instructions if followed
diligently(which is very hard to do) are enough to produce great
somatic change and self-awareness without the need of a teacher.
In China there is the I-Ching and no doubt other Taoist things which
are regarded as great by many.
'Spiritual' writings in many cultures often contain the same wisdom as
do some 'occult' and 'alchemical' writings in western culture. People
have been at this business for a very long time and no matter how
great the teachers no more than a tiny percentage of people ever 'get
it'.
Shakespeare wrote 'There are more things than are dreamed of in your
philosophy' - maybe he was referring to this type of knowledge.
In the 'rational' west AT has mercifully kept itself clear of religion
and superstition which occludes the somatic elements of the eastern
methods. There are great writings all over the place!
regards,
Keith
On 18 May 2012 14:08, sraj <sra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexander writes the following in page 155 of MSI (Man's supreme
> inheritance)
>
> ... and the outcome will be a race of men and women who will outstrip their
> ancestors in every known sphere, and enter new spheres as yet undreamt of by
> the great majority of the civilized peoples of our time. The world will then
> make in one century greater progress in evolution towards a real
> civilization than it has made in the past three….
The reason Alexander's discoveries haven't been taken up by the world
> Alexander writes the following in page 155 of MSI (Man's supreme
> inheritance)
>
> ... and the outcome will be a race of men and women who will outstrip their
> ancestors in every known sphere, and enter new spheres as yet undreamt of by
> the great majority of the civilized peoples of our time. The world will then
> make in one century greater progress in evolution towards a real
> civilization than it has made in the past three….
are rather subtle.
A simple view is that AT changes you in a way you can only understand
when it has changed you. So it is not rational to start to learn it.
A more subtle view is that our own mind gives us a 'self' with views
of reality as foundations we need to operate in the world. Those
foundations are often wrong and the more unreleased stress reactions
we have accumulated the more wrong they are. AT changes parts of the
mind that 'hold' (or are attached to in buddhist terms) these beliefs
so is resisted subconsciously.
FMA's work is great but I believe FMA was not the first person to make
discoveries about somatic change and the problem of teaching. When I
realised people trained in AT found the work of others in the same
field as difficult to understand as laymen find FMA's work it was most
surprising.
For me the buddhist sutra's are great even though I understand only a
little of them.
The kundalini yoga manuals are also great for me. We don't know who
discovered the techniques in them or how many people were involved or
how old they are. But the simple instructions if followed
diligently(which is very hard to do) are enough to produce great
somatic change and self-awareness without the need of a teacher.
In China there is the I-Ching and no doubt other Taoist things which
are regarded as great by many.
'Spiritual' writings in many cultures often contain the same wisdom as
do some 'occult' and 'alchemical' writings in western culture. People
have been at this business for a very long time and no matter how
great the teachers no more than a tiny percentage of people ever 'get
it'.
Shakespeare wrote 'There are more things than are dreamed of in your
philosophy' - maybe he was referring to this type of knowledge.
In the 'rational' west AT has mercifully kept itself clear of religion
and superstition which occludes the somatic elements of the eastern
methods. There are great writings all over the place!
regards,
Keith
Keith Bacon
May 18, 2012, 12:07:28 PM5/18/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi Rex,
On 18 May 2012 15:00, Rex Alexander <rext...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
> Actually, there some religions and ideologies which embrace the notion of
> highly evolved men and a "super race." Some of them, not very nice.
In theory meditation etc helps people not be screwed up by their ego
but so often in practice deluded people combine their ego with
'spirituality' or religion and make a big mess in their head and in
other's lives.
A spiritual teacher with a sense of humour called Mystress Angelique
Serpent (of all things!) wrote:-
'Honey - this stuff doesn't stop you from being mundane'.
Spending time with yogis and buddhists is really interesting - seeing
how good teachers use very round about language to hint to people that
there is no re-incarnation or super-natural god but don't force it so
they can continue with their beliefs.
Two aspects to this - one you can only coax such people gently to
'awaken'. The other is the teacher knows he might be wrong.
Our Yogi Bhajan chucked a guy out of his organisation because he
started saying YB was another Jesus. The bloke went off and started a
quite successful cult with himself as the head. It's tragic stuff.
We're a tragic species really.
Having said that I have no doubt achieving a degrees of somatic change
does a person an awful lot of good and it gives them a better
understanding of how people work, allowing them to manipulate others.
It also improves physical performance in may cases.
FMA wrote that AT won't necessarily stop you being a thief but will
make you a better thief.
Bu being more sensitive to neuron mirroring demonstrates it is far
better for your happiness to treat people from compassion than greed.
That's 'Enlightened' self interest.
K
On 18 May 2012 15:00, Rex Alexander <rext...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
> Actually, there some religions and ideologies which embrace the notion of
> highly evolved men and a "super race." Some of them, not very nice.
but so often in practice deluded people combine their ego with
'spirituality' or religion and make a big mess in their head and in
other's lives.
A spiritual teacher with a sense of humour called Mystress Angelique
Serpent (of all things!) wrote:-
'Honey - this stuff doesn't stop you from being mundane'.
Spending time with yogis and buddhists is really interesting - seeing
how good teachers use very round about language to hint to people that
there is no re-incarnation or super-natural god but don't force it so
they can continue with their beliefs.
Two aspects to this - one you can only coax such people gently to
'awaken'. The other is the teacher knows he might be wrong.
Our Yogi Bhajan chucked a guy out of his organisation because he
started saying YB was another Jesus. The bloke went off and started a
quite successful cult with himself as the head. It's tragic stuff.
We're a tragic species really.
Having said that I have no doubt achieving a degrees of somatic change
does a person an awful lot of good and it gives them a better
understanding of how people work, allowing them to manipulate others.
It also improves physical performance in may cases.
FMA wrote that AT won't necessarily stop you being a thief but will
make you a better thief.
Bu being more sensitive to neuron mirroring demonstrates it is far
better for your happiness to treat people from compassion than greed.
That's 'Enlightened' self interest.
K
Lutz Golbs
May 18, 2012, 12:12:27 PM5/18/12
to sra...@gmail.com, alex...@googlegroups.com
Hello Selvaraj, list,
if we look at the quote closely, the misleading word 'race' comes with the article a. It simply doesn't sound like a super-race to control the stupid rest, but the evolution of all mankind towards a new form of civilisation.
I consider this evolutionary step not only attainable, but more of a necessity for our times. Luckily, Alexander's principle aren't the only way to foster human evolution, and his 'findings' weren't that new, rather his way of presenting and teaching them.
It depends on how big the role of 'Alexandrians' in shaping the next civilisation becomes, to declare MSI as highly, if not most important book. Fuller, Korzybski, Leary, McKenna, and many others I read come to similar descriptions of the low state of civilisation and the potential for evolution.
The speed in which basic resources for all mankind are destroyed to extract the remainders of carbon based energy from the planet could also bring a devolution. Coal Seam Gas extraction, for example, endangers the water tables for entire continents. The scale of the destruction of ecosystems has become so large that we better find a new planet soon. Or learn to take better care of the one we have.
Greets,
Lutz
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech?hl=en.
sraj
May 18, 2012, 1:57:36 PM5/18/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi Keith,
You are right, Alexander was not the first to discover these things. Yoga traditions are well known to offer supernatural benefits. But let's face it, to what extent can we really say that the people of India have benefited from Yoga? If Yoga = what Alexander is saying above, India would be leading all the nations of the world. Another problem with ancient approaches is that they are usually linked to religious traditions; in Indian tradition they frequently point towards attaining Moksha, a release from suffering. Christian tradition points in the same direction, suffering on earth, so as to reach heaven.
When Alexander, a modern man, a product of the industrial revolution, says explicitly what is written in MSI, the implications are entirely different. It is possible that our ancient Yoga gurus may have implied the same thing, but they are separated from us by a great divide of circumstances,lifestyles and time.
Alexander's wording is important. We would like to know whether any other discipline (or any philosopher, or any religious leader) has made similar clear cut claims, in the modern context, in support of their methodology and ideology, to improve the human condition.
Regards,
Selvaraj
Keith Bacon
May 19, 2012, 7:13:20 AM5/19/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi Selveraj,
On 18 May 2012 18:57, sraj <sra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are right, Alexander was not the first to discover these things.
> Yoga traditions are well known to offer supernatural benefits.
I don't believe AT or yoga confers supernatural benefits.I know a lot
of people believe yoga does though.
> ... to what extent can we really say that the people of India
> have benefited from Yoga?
Mahatma Ghandi? Guru Nanak?
> If Yoga = what Alexander is saying
> above, India would be leading all the nations of the world.
Only a tiny percentage of the population of India gets the somatic
benefits of yoga. Just as a tiny percentage of westerners get the
benefits of yoga or AT etc and a tiny percentage of Tibetans get the
somatic benefits of the meditation the Dallai Lama teaches. It has
always been like this
> Another problem with ancient approaches is
> that they are usually linked to religious traditions;
Yes by religious people and their detractors. It's secular if you want it.
> in Indian tradition
> they frequently point towards attaining Moksha, a release from
> suffering. Christian tradition points in the same direction, suffering
> on earth, so as to reach heaven.
Only for those that believe in super-natural places and entities.
There have always been those like me that think the advantages while
personally valuable are mundanely of this earth. When I read extreme
yoga claims I just insert 'It feels as if' in front and ask myself is
what that person feels real?
> When Alexander, a modern man, a product of the industrial
> revolution, says explicitly what is written in MSI, the implications
> are entirely different.
No. There have been thinkers like FMA for many thousands of years.
They discovered meditation and yoga and all sorts of things. The
Stoics of ancient Greece are admired by many westerners. Marcus
Aurelius's Meditations are regarded as modern thinking by many people
- who strangely like the book but won't try to do the practice that
made Marcus and the other Stoics (the masters of Inhibition) think and
feel how they did.
Other people attach super-natural and religious ideas to their
techniques. They may be right but I believe they are wrong.
> It is possible that our ancient Yoga gurus may have implied the
> same thing, but they are separated from us by a great divide of
> circumstances,lifestyles and time.
Parts of the buddhist sutra's and my kundalini yoga manuals remove
that divide in time. If you do their methods and it works you
experience the changes in Use or psycho-physical state as their
discoverers did.
When you get these changes your thinking and philosophy changes. All
the Buddhas Past and Present. Some think that means these people are
still alive due to re-incarnation but to me it means you can never be
more than just one of countless people that made the inner journey and
your mind is like theirs is. All ego-less philosophy leads to the same
types of conclusions. All somatic methods reduce the negative aspects
of ego.
Religion is a mix of the ego-less moral stuff and ego-based superstition.
A lot of people in the west are seeking to extract the grounded
secular somatic elements of yoga and buddhism to make it marketable in
western culture. They are succeeding to some degree. But when marketed
as spiritual or religious that works too, so why not do it all ways?
Who is qualified to market complete truth?
> Alexander's wording is important. We would like to know whether
> any other discipline (or any philosopher, or any religious leader) has
> made similar clear cut claims, in the modern context, in support of
> their methodology and ideology, to improve the human condition.
To quote a modern teacher of somatic meditation:-
'I teach the same ancient s*^t but with modern words'.
Or from Marcus Aurelius:-
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will
not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the
virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you
should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will
be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the
memories of your loved ones.”
Secular!
"If you are pained by external things, it is not they that disturb
you, but your own judgement of them. And it is in your power to wipe
out that judgment now. "
Where does one find that power? Through Stoic meditation, AT or whatever.
Aristotle
"All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance,
nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire."
No gods there!
Yogi Bhajan
"Meditation is the art of breaking habits".
Marcus Aurelius
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
Inhibit your negative response?
There's lots of stuff out there! There is a subtle reason much of the
writing doesn't refer to the body aspect of somatics. So it's very
easy to take this stuff like FMA's stuff as just exhortations to think
differently and miss the importance of the method that changes your
mind and body thus making you think like this naturally.
Happy hunting,
Keith
On 18 May 2012 18:57, sraj <sra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are right, Alexander was not the first to discover these things.
> Yoga traditions are well known to offer supernatural benefits.
of people believe yoga does though.
> ... to what extent can we really say that the people of India
> have benefited from Yoga?
Mahatma Ghandi? Guru Nanak?
> If Yoga = what Alexander is saying
> above, India would be leading all the nations of the world.
benefits of yoga. Just as a tiny percentage of westerners get the
benefits of yoga or AT etc and a tiny percentage of Tibetans get the
somatic benefits of the meditation the Dallai Lama teaches. It has
always been like this
> Another problem with ancient approaches is
> that they are usually linked to religious traditions;
> in Indian tradition
> they frequently point towards attaining Moksha, a release from
> suffering. Christian tradition points in the same direction, suffering
> on earth, so as to reach heaven.
There have always been those like me that think the advantages while
personally valuable are mundanely of this earth. When I read extreme
yoga claims I just insert 'It feels as if' in front and ask myself is
what that person feels real?
> When Alexander, a modern man, a product of the industrial
> revolution, says explicitly what is written in MSI, the implications
> are entirely different.
They discovered meditation and yoga and all sorts of things. The
Stoics of ancient Greece are admired by many westerners. Marcus
Aurelius's Meditations are regarded as modern thinking by many people
- who strangely like the book but won't try to do the practice that
made Marcus and the other Stoics (the masters of Inhibition) think and
feel how they did.
Other people attach super-natural and religious ideas to their
techniques. They may be right but I believe they are wrong.
> It is possible that our ancient Yoga gurus may have implied the
> same thing, but they are separated from us by a great divide of
> circumstances,lifestyles and time.
that divide in time. If you do their methods and it works you
experience the changes in Use or psycho-physical state as their
discoverers did.
When you get these changes your thinking and philosophy changes. All
the Buddhas Past and Present. Some think that means these people are
still alive due to re-incarnation but to me it means you can never be
more than just one of countless people that made the inner journey and
your mind is like theirs is. All ego-less philosophy leads to the same
types of conclusions. All somatic methods reduce the negative aspects
of ego.
Religion is a mix of the ego-less moral stuff and ego-based superstition.
A lot of people in the west are seeking to extract the grounded
secular somatic elements of yoga and buddhism to make it marketable in
western culture. They are succeeding to some degree. But when marketed
as spiritual or religious that works too, so why not do it all ways?
Who is qualified to market complete truth?
> Alexander's wording is important. We would like to know whether
> any other discipline (or any philosopher, or any religious leader) has
> made similar clear cut claims, in the modern context, in support of
> their methodology and ideology, to improve the human condition.
'I teach the same ancient s*^t but with modern words'.
Or from Marcus Aurelius:-
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will
not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the
virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you
should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will
be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the
memories of your loved ones.”
Secular!
"If you are pained by external things, it is not they that disturb
you, but your own judgement of them. And it is in your power to wipe
out that judgment now. "
Where does one find that power? Through Stoic meditation, AT or whatever.
Aristotle
"All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance,
nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire."
No gods there!
Yogi Bhajan
"Meditation is the art of breaking habits".
Marcus Aurelius
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
Inhibit your negative response?
There's lots of stuff out there! There is a subtle reason much of the
writing doesn't refer to the body aspect of somatics. So it's very
easy to take this stuff like FMA's stuff as just exhortations to think
differently and miss the importance of the method that changes your
mind and body thus making you think like this naturally.
Happy hunting,
Keith
Keith Bacon
May 19, 2012, 7:15:49 AM5/19/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi David,
On 19 May 2012 02:12, School for F.M. Alexander Studies
> Alexander did not write this. If I am wrong about that show me where this
> quote comes from.
I don't know where it comes from. Thinking about it I suspect it was
told to me by someone in AT school. Maybe he never said it either. I
don't know.
If he did say it I assume it was a joke and I also think it's true.
Keith.
On 19 May 2012 02:12, School for F.M. Alexander Studies
<in...@alexanderschool.edu.au> wrote:
> "FMA wrote that AT won't necessarily stop you being a thief but will make
> you a better thief."
>
> Hi Keith
> "FMA wrote that AT won't necessarily stop you being a thief but will make
> you a better thief."
>
> Alexander did not write this. If I am wrong about that show me where this
> quote comes from.
I don't know where it comes from. Thinking about it I suspect it was
told to me by someone in AT school. Maybe he never said it either. I
don't know.
If he did say it I assume it was a joke and I also think it's true.
Keith.
Dorella Belle
May 19, 2012, 8:03:19 AM5/19/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
"It is possible that our ancient Yoga gurus may have implied the same
thing, but they are separated from us by a great divide of
circumstances,lifestyles and time"
Alexander has helped me in this, in creating a link from my cultural background to the eastern traditions. But the Integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo (for example) and the intuitions of AT are expressions of the same principle.Selvaraj
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alextech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Keith Bacon
May 19, 2012, 8:03:53 AM5/19/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi Selveraj,
Here's some Sikh "holy" passages from 500 or so years ago. I see in
this the same sorts of claims Alexander made.
I think like our own bible there is stuff put in there by secular
somatics teachers!
How do you exhort people to do somatic yoga/meditation rather than use
church as superstitious ritual? You can't outright claim their
religion is wrong.
I believe this says - Look so many people have all these conflicting
ideas of God. But take this path - that's what's good for you. That
path is the the same path as the buddhists or AT etc.
And does that path offer eternal heaven? Nope it lets one "blossom
forth, Carefree and Untroubled. "
ie. No matter what you believe about God, God is telling you follow
the path for your own good on earth!
= = = = =
Some sing of His Power-who has that Power? Some sing of His Gifts, and
know His Sign and Insignia. Some sing of His Glorious Virtues,
Greatness and Beauty. Some sing of knowledge obtained of Him, through
difficult philosophical studies.
....
Some sing that He seems so very far away. Some sing that He watches
over us, face to face, ever-present. There is no shortage of those who
preach and teach. Millions upon millions offer millions of sermons and
stories. The Great Giver keeps on giving, while those who receive grow
weary of receiving. Throughout the ages, consumers consume. The
Commander, by His Command, leads us to walk on the Path. O Nanak, He
blossoms forth, Carefree and Untroubled.
=====
Heres' another secular passage offering only earthly benefits:-
= = = = =
Listening - the technology of yoga and the secrets of the body.
Listening - the Simritees and the Vedas.
O Nanak the Devotees are forever in Bliss.
Listening - pain and sin are erased.
Listening - truth contentment and spiritual wisdom
Listening ....
Listening - Intuitively grasp the essence of meditation
Listening - Pain and sin are erased.
====
Here's some Sikh "holy" passages from 500 or so years ago. I see in
this the same sorts of claims Alexander made.
I think like our own bible there is stuff put in there by secular
somatics teachers!
How do you exhort people to do somatic yoga/meditation rather than use
church as superstitious ritual? You can't outright claim their
religion is wrong.
I believe this says - Look so many people have all these conflicting
ideas of God. But take this path - that's what's good for you. That
path is the the same path as the buddhists or AT etc.
And does that path offer eternal heaven? Nope it lets one "blossom
forth, Carefree and Untroubled. "
ie. No matter what you believe about God, God is telling you follow
the path for your own good on earth!
= = = = =
Some sing of His Power-who has that Power? Some sing of His Gifts, and
know His Sign and Insignia. Some sing of His Glorious Virtues,
Greatness and Beauty. Some sing of knowledge obtained of Him, through
difficult philosophical studies.
....
Some sing that He seems so very far away. Some sing that He watches
over us, face to face, ever-present. There is no shortage of those who
preach and teach. Millions upon millions offer millions of sermons and
stories. The Great Giver keeps on giving, while those who receive grow
weary of receiving. Throughout the ages, consumers consume. The
Commander, by His Command, leads us to walk on the Path. O Nanak, He
blossoms forth, Carefree and Untroubled.
=====
Heres' another secular passage offering only earthly benefits:-
= = = = =
Listening - the technology of yoga and the secrets of the body.
Listening - the Simritees and the Vedas.
O Nanak the Devotees are forever in Bliss.
Listening - pain and sin are erased.
Listening - truth contentment and spiritual wisdom
Listening ....
Listening - Intuitively grasp the essence of meditation
Listening - Pain and sin are erased.
====
John Coffin
May 19, 2012, 2:00:28 PM5/19/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com, sra...@gmail.com
Hello list;
To answer the subject line question: No.
Man's Supreme Inheritance is damned important for Alexandrians, but the hasty writing of the 1910 version and the awkward expansion of 1918 make the book too sprawling and difficult to convey its message efficiently.
Alexander's language about 'progress' is almost boilerplate for contemporary books about social-political-health notions. This is perhaps the least original and interesting stuff in the book. If you actually read the quote in context, it is obvious that FM is NOT talking about some 'supernatural' effect of improved Use. He is talking about the enormous difficulty that human beings have in learning from new and unprecedented experiences. The 'progress toward real civilization' is not claimed as a future product of Alexander lessons, but as the result of a revolution in teachability and reasoning capacity.
Alexander is more allied with Voltaire, Thomas Paine and Robert Green Ingersoll than with any religious tradition or Eastern Wisdom.
Here is the full text of the paragraphs in question, note how FM starts with a simple problem of teaching and shows how it relates to broader problems of growth and change. It is especially interesting that he is speaking here of faulty sensory appreciation and inhibition; two concepts that many, perhaps most, participants on this list seem determined to avoid thinking about.
When it is explained to such a pupil that inhibition is the first step in his re-education, that his apprehensive fear that he may be doing wrong and his intense desire to do right are the secrets of his failure, he will invariably endeavour to prevent himself from doing anything, by exerting force usually in the opposite direction. And so he creates a second harmful force which, in conjunction with the first, serves only to increase the undue physical tension and to intensify the already exaggerated apprehensive condition. The fundamental principle in the reeducation of such a subject is the prevention of this undue and unnecessary apprehension. He must not attempt to remedy any defect by "doing something" physically in accordance with his sensory appreciation, which is the outcome of his erroneous preconceived, ideas and incorrect psychophysical experience. His reasoning power is dominated by his sense of feeling where his psycho-physical self is concerned, so that he cannot even attempt to carry out any physical act except the one he feels to be right, despite the fact that by his reasoning faculties and practical proof he knows that his sense of feeling is misleading and is the outcome of erroneous preconceived ideas. We must therefore make him understand that so very frequently in re-education the correct way to perform an act feels the impossible way. There is only one way out of the difficulty. He must recognize that guidance by his old sensory appreciation (feeling) is dangerously faulty, and he must be taught to regain his lost power of inhibition and to develop conscious guidance. The teacher must with his hands move the pupil's body for him in the particular act required, thereby giving him the correct kinsesthetic experience of the performance of the act.
To the uninitiated this may seem a simple matter, but if my reader will put it to the test, it will not be necessary for me to convince him that it is quite otherwise in the majority of cases. This is not surprising when it is realized that as soon as the teacher places his hands on the pupil and attempts to move him, he is at once in contact with his faulty and deceptive sense of feeling, the dominating sense in the subconsciously controlled person in such circumstances. My experience has proved that the pupil at first will act in precisely the same way if I attempt to perform the act for him as if I had asked him to do it without my assistance. He is just as apprehensive as a result of one request as of the other, and in this state of apprehensiveness he is, mentally and physically, impossible to deal with from the standpoint of re-education. He conjures up in his mind all kinds of fears that he will do this or that incorrectly. If you mention that he did a certain thing when you placed your hands on him, he will make an endeavour physically to prevent himself the next time. This, of course, is one of the worst errors a pupil can make. It is usually attended by far more tension and apprehension than when he performed the act which you pointed out was incorrect. The re-education work really begins here, and it takes weeks, nay, sometimes months to bring the pupil to a stage in his co-ordination when he will be really once more in communication with his reason. With these facts before us I feel that my reader will advocate with me the necessity of adopting principles which will create new and correct habits, and eradicate needless apprehension and fear from the souls of human beings. To this end we must break the chains which have so long held them to that directive mental plane which belongs to the early stages of his evolution. The adoption of conscious guidance and control (man's supreme inheritance) must follow, and the outcome will be a race of men and women who will outstrip their ancestors in every known sphere, and enter new spheres as yet undreamt of by the great majority of the civilized peoples of our time. The world will then make in one century greater progress in evolution towards a real civilization than it has made in the past three. |
|
|
|
Keith Bacon
May 20, 2012, 1:57:08 PM5/20/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi John and all,
On 19 May 2012 19:00, John Coffin <jbco...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> He (Alexander) is talking about the enormous difficulty that human
your reason to prevail over the power of unwanted habits? That until
someone has learned AT their end-gaining will impair their learning of
anything?
All religions seem to have a strand of contemplation / meditation that
allows somatic change which only a tiny minority pursue. They can't
get the others to understand what they do and how they are changed.
This is an ancient problem and it is the same problem in yoga and
meditation classes and the same problem the AT world faces with the
lay world.
You mention 'unprecedented experiences'. In esoteric traditions the
induction of 'altered states' is the acme of this. You don't need
words to teach people if you can turn them into something they had no
idea they could be! You can show someone a lot about the power of
habit just by switching their habits off!
> Alexander is more allied with Voltaire, Thomas Paine and Robert Green
> Ingersoll than with any religious tradition or Eastern Wisdom.
Not to me. Alexander understood that the type of change in the mind he
advocated was not achieved just by thinking with the head but by a
holistic process of psycho-physical change that improved people's
mental and physical well-being (and their posture too).
That is the same as the somatic element of many ancient traditions.
These traditions have many aspects so I found it hard to spot the
aspects that relate to AT. Plenty of people are working on extracting
the rational somatic elements out of the current mire.
Having said that many western philosophers may have practiced forms of
somatic meditation, as the Stoics did, making their thinking somewhat
in line with FMA's. They may even have used something close to modern
AT. As our church tended to persecute independent thinkers they kept
it secret which is a tragic shame.
> ... It is especially interesting that he is
cornerstones of a somatic method. For a person who can't afford
lessons it is down-right wrong - I found this by hard experience.
Inhibition is implicit in any form of eastern practice I have
experienced. That applies at the basic level of defensive reactions
and at the higher level of behavioural reactions. It is not given the
primacy that it is in AT. That may be something to do with people not
being taught with hands on. It is definitely something to do with a
view that if a person notices something for themselves the lesson
learned is more effective.
I believe anyone who develops an increased level of proprioceptive
awareness by any means becomes aware of their over-reactivity and
seeks to inhibit it. The natural processes of the para-sympathetic
nervous system stimulated by yoga /meditation reduce the
over-reactivity naturally.
I believe they also become aware of 'faulty sensory appreciation' /
faulty kinesthesia in the low level sense of a cock-eyed body map and
in the higher level sense of realising their habits while seeming
natural and right are not necessarily so. To me these things come
right by themselves as an outcome of the release of muscle tension and
related changes. There is no need to focus so much on them. Cleansing
the Nadis or Opening Chi Channels may sound new agey but it's being
fixing body maps just fine for thousands of years.
There is tremendous variance in views on what factors are most
important across disciplines and within each discipline. We are
complex and there are many ways to intervene in the feedback loops
that cause stress and poor Use. This is why we have so many
techniques.
regards,
Keith.
On 19 May 2012 19:00, John Coffin <jbco...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> He (Alexander) is talking about the enormous difficulty that human
> beings have in learning from new and unprecedented experiences.
> ......
> The 'progress toward real civilization' is not claimed as a
> future product of Alexander lessons, but as the result of a revolution in
> teachability and reasoning capacity.
But surely he is saying you need to apply his technique in order for
> future product of Alexander lessons, but as the result of a revolution in
> teachability and reasoning capacity.
your reason to prevail over the power of unwanted habits? That until
someone has learned AT their end-gaining will impair their learning of
anything?
All religions seem to have a strand of contemplation / meditation that
allows somatic change which only a tiny minority pursue. They can't
get the others to understand what they do and how they are changed.
This is an ancient problem and it is the same problem in yoga and
meditation classes and the same problem the AT world faces with the
lay world.
You mention 'unprecedented experiences'. In esoteric traditions the
induction of 'altered states' is the acme of this. You don't need
words to teach people if you can turn them into something they had no
idea they could be! You can show someone a lot about the power of
habit just by switching their habits off!
> Alexander is more allied with Voltaire, Thomas Paine and Robert Green
> Ingersoll than with any religious tradition or Eastern Wisdom.
advocated was not achieved just by thinking with the head but by a
holistic process of psycho-physical change that improved people's
mental and physical well-being (and their posture too).
That is the same as the somatic element of many ancient traditions.
These traditions have many aspects so I found it hard to spot the
aspects that relate to AT. Plenty of people are working on extracting
the rational somatic elements out of the current mire.
Having said that many western philosophers may have practiced forms of
somatic meditation, as the Stoics did, making their thinking somewhat
in line with FMA's. They may even have used something close to modern
AT. As our church tended to persecute independent thinkers they kept
it secret which is a tragic shame.
> ... It is especially interesting that he is
> speaking here of faulty sensory appreciation and inhibition;
> two concepts that many, perhaps most, participants on this list
> seem determined to avoid thinking about.
I don't believe it is necessary to make these things the sole
> two concepts that many, perhaps most, participants on this list
> seem determined to avoid thinking about.
cornerstones of a somatic method. For a person who can't afford
lessons it is down-right wrong - I found this by hard experience.
Inhibition is implicit in any form of eastern practice I have
experienced. That applies at the basic level of defensive reactions
and at the higher level of behavioural reactions. It is not given the
primacy that it is in AT. That may be something to do with people not
being taught with hands on. It is definitely something to do with a
view that if a person notices something for themselves the lesson
learned is more effective.
I believe anyone who develops an increased level of proprioceptive
awareness by any means becomes aware of their over-reactivity and
seeks to inhibit it. The natural processes of the para-sympathetic
nervous system stimulated by yoga /meditation reduce the
over-reactivity naturally.
I believe they also become aware of 'faulty sensory appreciation' /
faulty kinesthesia in the low level sense of a cock-eyed body map and
in the higher level sense of realising their habits while seeming
natural and right are not necessarily so. To me these things come
right by themselves as an outcome of the release of muscle tension and
related changes. There is no need to focus so much on them. Cleansing
the Nadis or Opening Chi Channels may sound new agey but it's being
fixing body maps just fine for thousands of years.
There is tremendous variance in views on what factors are most
important across disciplines and within each discipline. We are
complex and there are many ways to intervene in the feedback loops
that cause stress and poor Use. This is why we have so many
techniques.
regards,
Keith.
peter
May 21, 2012, 3:40:11 AM5/21/12
to AlexTech Mail List
On the theme of inhibition, William James in one of his essays wrote:
"Writing is higher than walking, thinking is higher than writing,
deciding higher than thinking, deciding `no' higher than deciding
`yes'- at least the man who passes from one of these activities to
another will usually say that each later one involves greater element
of inner work than the earlier ones, even though
the total heat given out or the foot-pounds expended by the organism
may be less."
Peter
"Writing is higher than walking, thinking is higher than writing,
deciding higher than thinking, deciding `no' higher than deciding
`yes'- at least the man who passes from one of these activities to
another will usually say that each later one involves greater element
of inner work than the earlier ones, even though
the total heat given out or the foot-pounds expended by the organism
may be less."
Peter
Keith Bacon
May 21, 2012, 4:48:58 AM5/21/12
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi Peter,
On 21 May 2012 08:40, peter <peter...@iolfree.ie> wrote:
> On the theme of inhibition, William James in one of his essays wrote:
>
> "Writing is higher than walking, thinking is higher than writing,
> deciding higher than thinking, deciding `no' higher than deciding
> `yes'
Do we know if his 'no' was a psycho-physical one or an intellectual one?
I spend (waste?) a certain amount of time reading old writings trying
to discern if the writer knew about the inner journey of
psycho-physical change. This started when I was taught the Stoics like
Marcus Aurelius used meditation but this was not generally
acknowledged by western philosophers. If that is true (and I'm sure it
is) then how could such a peculiar situation be?
regards,
Keith
On 21 May 2012 08:40, peter <peter...@iolfree.ie> wrote:
> On the theme of inhibition, William James in one of his essays wrote:
>
> "Writing is higher than walking, thinking is higher than writing,
> deciding higher than thinking, deciding `no' higher than deciding
> `yes'
I spend (waste?) a certain amount of time reading old writings trying
to discern if the writer knew about the inner journey of
psycho-physical change. This started when I was taught the Stoics like
Marcus Aurelius used meditation but this was not generally
acknowledged by western philosophers. If that is true (and I'm sure it
is) then how could such a peculiar situation be?
regards,
Keith
sraj
May 30, 2012, 10:03:32 PM5/30/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Keith wrote:
advocated was not achieved just by thinking with the head but by a
holistic process of psycho-physical change that improved people's
mental and physical well-being (and their posture too).
> Alexander is more allied with Voltaire, Thomas Paine and Robert Green
> Ingersoll than with any religious tradition or Eastern Wisdom.
Not to me. Alexander understood that the type of change in the mind he> Ingersoll than with any religious tradition or Eastern Wisdom.
advocated was not achieved just by thinking with the head but by a
holistic process of psycho-physical change that improved people's
mental and physical well-being (and their posture too).
............
Plato wrote:
The
greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are
physicians for the body and physicians for the soul, although the two
cannot be separated. ~Plato
.... These are vague ideas, compared with Alexander's sharp posture related remedy. Alexander also recognises that the whole of humanity is getting it wrong (and he is bold enough to state it).
Regards,
Selvaraj
Rex Alexander
May 30, 2012, 11:43:31 PM5/30/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Thu 31 May 2012, 10:03 am
Good Morning Keith, Sraj, all,
Alexander wrote in the idiom of his day, the paradigm of his 19th Century contemporaries. Sweeping generalizations such as the "whole of humanity is getting it wrong" stated emphatically as fact rather than offered as opinion or speculation (I don't know if that is Sraj or FMA speaking, but FMA and his contemporaries certainly habitually made many similar pronouncements) are not credible by today's standards of rhetoric, or even by elementary logic. We assume that many or most Alexander teachers and some of their students, and maybe even a few TaiChi masters are "getting it right", which makes statements such as "the whole of humanity" nothing sort of ridiculous! Certainly it takes a lot more discipline and writing acumen to avoid the easy temptation to generalize, pontificate, and indulge in other rhetorical "sins", and to present opinion as though it were fact. However, anyone listening who knows something about General Semantics and rhetoric will quickly identify such language as nothing more than wishful thinking. Without even examining the particulars or supporting evidence, we know prima facie that it is extremely unlikely that any such generalization such as "all of humanity . . . " could possibly be correct.
sraj
May 31, 2012, 2:03:06 AM5/31/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hello Rex,
With the postural model I have in mind (my model could be wrong), it is highly unlikely that an *adult* is getting it right. I stand by my 'Sweeping Generalization'. Science is based on sweeping generalisation. Even if one exception is proved, one would have to revise his theory. If the various masters in the field had a good understanding of the problem they could have passed on their knowledge to the rest of humanity; this, having not happened, the knowledge base is itself suspect. I am sorry if my direct statements offend a lot of people. The important thing however is that we solve this problem.
Regards,
Selvaraj
Rex Alexander
May 31, 2012, 2:26:01 AM5/31/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Thu 31 May 2012, 1:17 pm
Hi Sraj, all,
Thanks for yours.
It is not a matter that your direct statements "offend a lot of people." Who cares if people are offended! The problem is that you tarnish your own credibility by using generalizations and other dubious semantics. If "the whole of humanity is getting it wrong" as you claim--assuming that all minds can even agree on what "getting it right" means, you must conclude that Alexander teachers, their faithful students, and certain others in somatic practices are either (a) Not a part of humanity, or (b) are not getting it right.
Many people who would like to be taken as an authority express opinion as if it were fact. Unfortunately, I reckon that many of them don't even realize that is what they are doing, would even deny it presented to them.
Sigh!
Keith Bacon
May 31, 2012, 5:21:59 AM5/31/12
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi Selveraj,
On 31 May 2012 03:03, sraj <sra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are
> physicians for the body and physicians for the soul, although the two cannot
> be separated. ~Plato
>
> .... These are vague ideas, compared with Alexander's sharp posture related
> remedy.
You can read that phrase of Plato as a sharp statement of our
psycho-physical unity from a person with direct experience of it.
People in the west admire the qualities of the Stoics but don't
realise they acquired these qualities from meditation.
Use of the word 'soul' might even be saying that when you have a deep
direct appreciation of psycho-physical unity it affects your beliefs
and becomes spiritual. When you 'see past' your mind what is it you
'see'? God? Your soul? or just things that arise from the processes of
your body?
People's posture improves as an outcome of somatic meditation just as
it does as a natural outcome of AT, though I think AT has a higher
success rate in actually getting somatic change in pupils than normal
meditation classes do.
Look at the 2 common buddha statues. One sitting in meditation with a
neck (and everything else) that seems very free to me, one fat and
laughing. To me that is a multi-layered message that has a 'sharp'
component to it. If you understand the shape of the meditating buddha
you understand what he taught because the posture of that body is an
outcome of changes in the mind - as well as part of the means used to
allow that posture to occur.
Marcus Aurelius (a Stoic) wrote that some people go to the mountains
and some go to the seaside for their holidays but the best journey you
can make is the journey within. That's not vague.
That bit I posted from the Sikh holy book that said your religious
ideas contradict each other but do your yoga wasn't vague.
Marcus's book 'Meditations' is supposed to be a document that shows
the effect of a sustained meditation practice on the mind. If your
mind has changed like this you body must have too as we are a
psycho-physical unity.
To a buddhist 'Just sit' might be claimed to be a sharp remedy too!
Same in yoga 'Do what your teacher tells you'. That seems pretty sharp.
Though what really matters is how well it works. If you do the sharp
bit it leads to subtle depths because we are complex creatures and
deep change is complex even if the means whereby you induce it is
simple.
No logic can claim that the 'means whereby' MUST be sharp or simple.
My experience tells me it is useful in teaching to present a simple
view but in personal practice knowledge of the complexities is very
useful too.
regards,
Keith.
On 31 May 2012 03:03, sraj <sra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are
> physicians for the body and physicians for the soul, although the two cannot
> be separated. ~Plato
>
> .... These are vague ideas, compared with Alexander's sharp posture related
> remedy.
psycho-physical unity from a person with direct experience of it.
People in the west admire the qualities of the Stoics but don't
realise they acquired these qualities from meditation.
Use of the word 'soul' might even be saying that when you have a deep
direct appreciation of psycho-physical unity it affects your beliefs
and becomes spiritual. When you 'see past' your mind what is it you
'see'? God? Your soul? or just things that arise from the processes of
your body?
People's posture improves as an outcome of somatic meditation just as
it does as a natural outcome of AT, though I think AT has a higher
success rate in actually getting somatic change in pupils than normal
meditation classes do.
Look at the 2 common buddha statues. One sitting in meditation with a
neck (and everything else) that seems very free to me, one fat and
laughing. To me that is a multi-layered message that has a 'sharp'
component to it. If you understand the shape of the meditating buddha
you understand what he taught because the posture of that body is an
outcome of changes in the mind - as well as part of the means used to
allow that posture to occur.
Marcus Aurelius (a Stoic) wrote that some people go to the mountains
and some go to the seaside for their holidays but the best journey you
can make is the journey within. That's not vague.
That bit I posted from the Sikh holy book that said your religious
ideas contradict each other but do your yoga wasn't vague.
Marcus's book 'Meditations' is supposed to be a document that shows
the effect of a sustained meditation practice on the mind. If your
mind has changed like this you body must have too as we are a
psycho-physical unity.
To a buddhist 'Just sit' might be claimed to be a sharp remedy too!
Same in yoga 'Do what your teacher tells you'. That seems pretty sharp.
Though what really matters is how well it works. If you do the sharp
bit it leads to subtle depths because we are complex creatures and
deep change is complex even if the means whereby you induce it is
simple.
No logic can claim that the 'means whereby' MUST be sharp or simple.
My experience tells me it is useful in teaching to present a simple
view but in personal practice knowledge of the complexities is very
useful too.
regards,
Keith.
sraj
May 31, 2012, 6:04:09 AM5/31/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hello Rex,
It is possible to discuss a system from the Black Box approach, without knowing what is in the box. The Wright Brothers built a heavier than air aircraft which could fly. Seeing that this could be done, further developments took place and now flying is routine.
In the field of posture, the general postural habits of humans is becoming worse, not better. Hence there must be a great gap in our understanding.
Saying the 'whole of humanity is getting it wrong' may not be the most diplomatic way of putting it. But let's keep in mind that this is a problem which has engaged humanity for at least 5000 years (if yoga traditions are to be believed).
We can of course choose to believe that everything is OK, so that the problem does not get solved for the next 5000 years, or we can choose to think sharply and try to solve the problem.
Incidentally, in Fig 1 of my website www.humanposture.com , I have quoted Dr Barlow, an Alexander Teacher, according to whom, 99% of humans have faulty posture. Let's keep in mind that this 99% is after more than 5000 years of striving. It is only 1% off my generalisation 'whole of humanity is getting it wrong' (which I admit does not sound very good to the ear)
If you are mainly against my making a socially offencive remark, I am prepared to apologise. I admit it is not the best way to get the message through. Maybe that's the point you are trying to make.
Regards,
Selvaraj
Rex Alexander
May 31, 2012, 8:25:55 AM5/31/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Thu 31 May 2012, 6:59 pm
Hi Keith, all,
No one has proved him wrong? About what exactly ??? The man lived a long life, wrote, lectured, taught, made pronouncements across a vast array of subjects, and left lasting impressions on great numbers of people. Why would anyone want to take the time to try to prove him wrong anyway? He could not possibly have been "wrong" in everything he said, nor could he be right everything. Clearly he was very opinionated. In any case, most of his assertions are not tangible enough to be proved one way or the other. Concepts as basic to AT as "primary control" have never been established as anything beyond speculation and opinion. It's like "chi" and similar concepts; many people are absolutely convinced that these are actual phenomenon, but in spite of strong, passionate opinion, and wishful thinking, they have not been established as anything more than belief. Perhaps they will be established some day, but today they are not. Maybe chi and prana are merely like tactile hallucinations. Or maybe there is something more ineffable and "trans-dimensional" at work. Believe what you like--as is the cherished right of people in free societies--but the fact is we don't know. Many people build entire identifies and establish lifestyles around the theory they have been abducted by aliens. No doubt a very powerful experience to such people, but probably not healthy to regard it as an actual, external event and take on the identity of "I am an alien abductee."
Some people take great umbrage when the term "placebo effect" is applied to some process they are fond of. That's because they really don't understand what the placebo effect is and what it tells us. Namely, that belief is powerful, and can quite regularly produce effects which cannot be explained. That's not a bad thing. It's a good thing, at least sometimes. But it may not be so good for witch doctors because in such cases, the cure comes from the patient's belief, not from whatever witchery is being performed. When the patient figures that out, s/he either gets depressed, or realizes he can get the same thing without the witch doctor as an intermediary.
> Hi Rex,
>
> On 31 May 2012 07:26, Rex Alexander <rext...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If "the whole of humanity is getting it wrong" as you claim--
>> assuming that all minds can even agree on what "getting it right"
>> means, you must conclude that Alexander teachers, their faithful
>> students, and certain others in somatic practices are either (a)
>> Not a part of humanity, or (b) are not getting it right.
>>
>
> Alexander spoke from belief acquired from experience. He strongly
> believed he was right and stated 'Any man who can prove me wrong
> will be my friend' or something similar.
>
> No one has proved him wrong and like many I think science will one
> day prove him right in many ways. I think it will also show that he
> missed a lot as well.
>
>
LM Lists
May 31, 2012, 10:55:04 AM5/31/12
to Alextech Server
Hi Rex and all,
Some people take great umbrage when the term "placebo effect" is applied to some process they are fond of. That's because they really don't understand what the placebo effect is and what it tells us. Namely, that belief is powerful, and can quite regularly produce effects which cannot be explained. That's not a bad thing. It's a good thing, at least sometimes.
Indeed, belief is powerful and it would be a lot better if we could
harness that more than we do, and an even better thing if we could
get rid of the nonsense theories surrounding so many things that do
work by placebo...
BUT, the biggest thing we could be looking at is not the good healing and helping effects of placebos but its dark side, the so-called "nocebo" effect. That is, while there are a huge number of problems which the positive placebo might help what about how many of these are caused in the first place by negative beliefs, by misconceptions and by misattributions. These negative beliefs range all the way from body mapping errors (my torso bends in the lower back) to social beliefs (they are all out to get me, I have to put them down if I am to be up) to self-esteem beliefs (I'm not good enough, I have to be better than everyone else to be liked) to misattributions of causation (auditions make me nervous, when it is my own thinking that is making me nervous), to work-related ones (there's too much to do, but it would be good to try to get it all done, when that just leads o stress and tension and frustration), and so on...
The whole direction of my work (LearningMethods) over the last decades has been to help people uncover these unconstructive ideas and beliefs and make them more accurate. When the negative, harming power of inaccurate beliefs is removed, most people do not end up with a lot of problems left that might need the help of a placebo... To me, that has a lot of implications. It shows that we are more inherently integrated and "OK" than most people think -- take away the interferences and as a result "the system" works pretty well by itself without our watching over it or ongoing helping out...
warmly,
David
BUT, the biggest thing we could be looking at is not the good healing and helping effects of placebos but its dark side, the so-called "nocebo" effect. That is, while there are a huge number of problems which the positive placebo might help what about how many of these are caused in the first place by negative beliefs, by misconceptions and by misattributions. These negative beliefs range all the way from body mapping errors (my torso bends in the lower back) to social beliefs (they are all out to get me, I have to put them down if I am to be up) to self-esteem beliefs (I'm not good enough, I have to be better than everyone else to be liked) to misattributions of causation (auditions make me nervous, when it is my own thinking that is making me nervous), to work-related ones (there's too much to do, but it would be good to try to get it all done, when that just leads o stress and tension and frustration), and so on...
The whole direction of my work (LearningMethods) over the last decades has been to help people uncover these unconstructive ideas and beliefs and make them more accurate. When the negative, harming power of inaccurate beliefs is removed, most people do not end up with a lot of problems left that might need the help of a placebo... To me, that has a lot of implications. It shows that we are more inherently integrated and "OK" than most people think -- take away the interferences and as a result "the system" works pretty well by itself without our watching over it or ongoing helping out...
warmly,
David
Rex Alexander
May 31, 2012, 11:47:28 AM5/31/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Thu 31 May 2012, 10:38 pm
Hi David, all,
Absolutely! Irrational beliefs, distorted thinking and pernicious automatic self-talk just below the surface of conscious awareness are responsible for much inflamed emoting, provoking poor choices and unrewarding, self-defeating behavior. In turn, there probably will be more irrational beliefs, distorted thinking and pernicious automatic self-talk in response to this behavior and to the events which the behavior provoked. And around it goes . . .
Keith Bacon
May 31, 2012, 12:27:10 PM5/31/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi Rex,
> Concepts as basic to AT as "primary control" ... like "chi" and similar concepts;
> ... they have not been established as anything more than belief.
Despite one whole year of AT teacher training I don't 'get' the
primary control so won't comment on that.
Prana and chi are strange terms and mean different things to
different people to refer to frequently delusional concepts and also
actual feelable things that are revealed as proprioception enters
consciousness. When people try to relate them to known physiological
things they talk of our electro-magnetic field and of our Sympathetic
Nervous System / Parasympathetic Nervous System balance. Maybe the
Ideo-Motor Response too.
> ... maybe there is something more ineffable and "trans-dimensional" at work.
I think not. I went kayaking and it was a much richer experience than
I though it was going to be from looking at people kayaking. People
talking about it didn't convey what I was going to experience. This
gap is wider in the somatics business. Deeper experiences start
involving people's deeper belief systems which are shaped by their own
needs, their natural pre-dispositions and what they are told.
> Some people take great umbrage when the term "placebo effect" is applied to
> some process they are fond of. That's because they really don't understand
> what the placebo effect is and what it tells us.
Indeed the placebo effect gives us scientific proof that an
intervention can have a positive effect even if the person
administering it and the person taking it aren't aware of how it
works.
The placebo acts as a trigger to release a process that results in a
beneficial change. Science hasn't yet explained how the deeper
mechanism behind it works though.
In the case of somatics the disparate techniques have in common that
because we are stressed and have systems in us that work to de-stress
us all we need to do is find something that makes our de-stressing
functions operate better. In AT terms you 'work on yourself' and
'right things do themselves'. In somatic meditation maybe all you
have to do is sit still for a long (very long!) time for it to happen!
Like the placebo effect this can work even if the teacher and the
pupil are both somewhat deluded or ignorant as to how it works (that
may be less the case in AT than in yoga). But I believe the actual
somatic techniques were worked out by people such as Alexander using
relentless empirical experimentation on themself and others. Such
people are rare and in the ancient world if you wanted your system to
propogate you hijacked religion, spirituality and superstition as
vehicles to carry your method. Some of those 'new agers' spouting
about prana and cosmic energies actually get tremendous benefits from
yoga while others talk a lot but don't actually do the hard work.
The nature of somatics is you learn about things after you sense them.
Words won't work to tell a pupil what will come and you may alienate
them if you tell them just what a mess they are, it's better to wait
for them to find out!
So you tell them something positive in them will increase - call it
vitality, life force, chi, prana etc.
You can let them think it comes from God or mysterious energies if it
inspires them. Hopefully that shuts them up long enough for the yoga
or whatever to work.
I once led a friend into super deep relaxation with my hands. After
she said what I did for her must have taken a tremendous amount of
energy out of me. When I said no I felt what you felt (I led our
mirror neurons into a feed-back loop) she said 'No that's some amazing
energy you've got there'. It was a shock but it made me see how as
soon as you get to non-normal experiences all sorts of beliefs surface
and they are too deep to change with reasoning.
There's aways the possibility she's right and I am blessed with god
like super energy but I think mirror neurons discovered in the 1990's
(but used by the yogis in 1990 BC!) are one of the mechanisms behind
hands-on healing and AT teaching too.
This relates to the 'deceptive placebo' in hyno-therapy, it's widely
used but some consider it 'witch doctoring' and not ethical. It
worked for yoga for thousands of years but in our culture it's not so
appropriate even though it still works depressingly effectively.
de-stressing suggestion is usually weak compared to other things like
harnessing release and postural reflexes, stimulating the
parasympathetic nervous system with the breath, neuron mirroring etc.
Specifically for AT there's not much attempt to explain it
physiologically . One reason is that because there is so much
hostility from so called 'scientific' people they are afraid to make
any claim that can be proved wrong as it will be used by hostile
people to demonstrate the whole thing is bad science.
That doesn't happen in yoga or meditation though with people like the
Dalai Llama and many yogis actively working to attract scientific
scrutiny.
If you look at the resistance to hypnosis from the scientific world
then it would seem it will take a lot of proof before we get anywhere.
regards,
Keith
> Concepts as basic to AT as "primary control" ... like "chi" and similar concepts;
> ... they have not been established as anything more than belief.
Despite one whole year of AT teacher training I don't 'get' the
primary control so won't comment on that.
Prana and chi are strange terms and mean different things to
different people to refer to frequently delusional concepts and also
actual feelable things that are revealed as proprioception enters
consciousness. When people try to relate them to known physiological
things they talk of our electro-magnetic field and of our Sympathetic
Nervous System / Parasympathetic Nervous System balance. Maybe the
Ideo-Motor Response too.
> ... maybe there is something more ineffable and "trans-dimensional" at work.
I think not. I went kayaking and it was a much richer experience than
I though it was going to be from looking at people kayaking. People
talking about it didn't convey what I was going to experience. This
gap is wider in the somatics business. Deeper experiences start
involving people's deeper belief systems which are shaped by their own
needs, their natural pre-dispositions and what they are told.
> Some people take great umbrage when the term "placebo effect" is applied to
> some process they are fond of. That's because they really don't understand
> what the placebo effect is and what it tells us.
intervention can have a positive effect even if the person
administering it and the person taking it aren't aware of how it
works.
The placebo acts as a trigger to release a process that results in a
beneficial change. Science hasn't yet explained how the deeper
mechanism behind it works though.
In the case of somatics the disparate techniques have in common that
because we are stressed and have systems in us that work to de-stress
us all we need to do is find something that makes our de-stressing
functions operate better. In AT terms you 'work on yourself' and
'right things do themselves'. In somatic meditation maybe all you
have to do is sit still for a long (very long!) time for it to happen!
Like the placebo effect this can work even if the teacher and the
pupil are both somewhat deluded or ignorant as to how it works (that
may be less the case in AT than in yoga). But I believe the actual
somatic techniques were worked out by people such as Alexander using
relentless empirical experimentation on themself and others. Such
people are rare and in the ancient world if you wanted your system to
propogate you hijacked religion, spirituality and superstition as
vehicles to carry your method. Some of those 'new agers' spouting
about prana and cosmic energies actually get tremendous benefits from
yoga while others talk a lot but don't actually do the hard work.
The nature of somatics is you learn about things after you sense them.
Words won't work to tell a pupil what will come and you may alienate
them if you tell them just what a mess they are, it's better to wait
for them to find out!
So you tell them something positive in them will increase - call it
vitality, life force, chi, prana etc.
You can let them think it comes from God or mysterious energies if it
inspires them. Hopefully that shuts them up long enough for the yoga
or whatever to work.
I once led a friend into super deep relaxation with my hands. After
she said what I did for her must have taken a tremendous amount of
energy out of me. When I said no I felt what you felt (I led our
mirror neurons into a feed-back loop) she said 'No that's some amazing
energy you've got there'. It was a shock but it made me see how as
soon as you get to non-normal experiences all sorts of beliefs surface
and they are too deep to change with reasoning.
There's aways the possibility she's right and I am blessed with god
like super energy but I think mirror neurons discovered in the 1990's
(but used by the yogis in 1990 BC!) are one of the mechanisms behind
hands-on healing and AT teaching too.
This relates to the 'deceptive placebo' in hyno-therapy, it's widely
used but some consider it 'witch doctoring' and not ethical. It
worked for yoga for thousands of years but in our culture it's not so
appropriate even though it still works depressingly effectively.
> But it may not be so good for witch doctors because in such cases, the cure comes
> from the patient's belief, not from whatever witchery is being performed.
Somatic change involves processes other than suggestion. In
> from the patient's belief, not from whatever witchery is being performed.
de-stressing suggestion is usually weak compared to other things like
harnessing release and postural reflexes, stimulating the
parasympathetic nervous system with the breath, neuron mirroring etc.
Specifically for AT there's not much attempt to explain it
physiologically . One reason is that because there is so much
hostility from so called 'scientific' people they are afraid to make
any claim that can be proved wrong as it will be used by hostile
people to demonstrate the whole thing is bad science.
That doesn't happen in yoga or meditation though with people like the
Dalai Llama and many yogis actively working to attract scientific
scrutiny.
If you look at the resistance to hypnosis from the scientific world
then it would seem it will take a lot of proof before we get anywhere.
regards,
Keith
Lutz Golbs
May 31, 2012, 12:36:47 PM5/31/12
to sra...@gmail.com, alex...@googlegroups.com
Hello list,
like Rex mentioned, according to General Semantics generalisations are generally wrong. When we apply the same subtlety to language as to the perception and coordination of movement, we gain plenty of clarity.
The data set for observation of posture and its development over time, especially if we consider time spans like 5000 years, is rather incomplete and sketchy. It might not even provide statistical significance from a scientific perspective.
How well people in average moved and kept themselves upright cannot be determined with a degree of certainty that allows the basis of a scientific theory. What Alexander experienced was a world in which technology spread wealth among most of the population, yet was still used to kill each other in dreadful wars.
FM's language fit into his times, I'm not too sure whether he knew Alfred Korzybski or read his book. When FM went into philosophie and sociology, his use of language was rather poor. Robert Anton Wilson suggested in some book the phrase sombunal (some but not all) to keep aware of the fallacy of generalisation.
I think the term 'posture' is limiting the idea what people get 'wrong'. The approach towards health in general is the wrong idea. Yes, not using our body efficiently degenerates health, but it falls back to the responsibility of the self, which is more than a body displaying an attitude or posture.
Recently I came across some statements from the Yellow Emperor, a classical text for Chinese Medicine. The description of typical diseases affected by the lifestyle of a civilisation incorporates many pattern of behaviour that exist until today. That would be an argument for the statement: "People usually do the wrong thing with themselves".
However, I think many health traditions managed to survive much longer than AT exists, yet it certainly depends on the quality of teaching whether a method still yields similar benefits their creators intended. Western perspective on history seems very skewed to me, there's often the attempt to unquestionably declare 'today' as precipice of the development of mankind, drone wars, torture camps and genocide included.
So the 'right' thing might be as simple as reconnecting to some inner healing facility. Life is very resilient, animals can survive a lot of injuries without any real or witch doctor. The human mind is extremely malleable, we can increase our sensitivity to inexplicable phenomena like 'primary control' or 'chi' or suspending disbelieve about the 'impossibility' of it.
During my shiatsu training the concept of chi transformed from an intellectual concept to a more tangible perception. Which, in turn, helped me to experience primary control easier. While i now confidently state the similarity or even equivalence of 'upright chi' and 'primary control' I still lack the depth of experience to use an easier to understand language.
There are many names for that what distinguishes us from mechanically operating matter. While we might fail to fully understand and explain the principle of life, we can still appreciate it. Our current society habitually focusses on the negative aspects of life - it's not good until your number one. Perfectionism is rampant, and without sufficient knowledge, people engage in good faith and with best intentions in detrimental, self-harming activities.
One of the strength of AT as teaching something universally known might lye in its involvement of the mind. The proposed experiment seems simple enough to be explored, the mind is tricked into cooperation. What you think is what you get.
Whether this journey leads to delusion or 'enlightenment' depends on the quality of feedback loops established. If we stick to the word of the master too literally, we get caught in dogma. There are many maps representing the unknown FM, like many others, invited us to explore.
Lutz
Keith Bacon
May 31, 2012, 12:39:11 PM5/31/12
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi Rex,
On 31 May 2012 16:47, Rex Alexander <rext...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely! Irrational beliefs, distorted thinking and pernicious automatic
> self-talk just below the surface of conscious awareness are responsible for
> much inflamed emoting, provoking poor choices and unrewarding,
> self-defeating behavior.
Do you think it is illogical or impossible that a person can train to
become conscious of things that were once sub-conscious?
Could this be applied to proprioception?
If you allow it is possible what do you think a person would
experience if they trained themselves to become aware of their
proprioception?
If you didn't know and asked someone who told you, then if you dislike
the answer what would you do about it?
Aroha
Keith.
On 31 May 2012 16:47, Rex Alexander <rext...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely! Irrational beliefs, distorted thinking and pernicious automatic
> self-talk just below the surface of conscious awareness are responsible for
> much inflamed emoting, provoking poor choices and unrewarding,
> self-defeating behavior.
become conscious of things that were once sub-conscious?
Could this be applied to proprioception?
If you allow it is possible what do you think a person would
experience if they trained themselves to become aware of their
proprioception?
If you didn't know and asked someone who told you, then if you dislike
the answer what would you do about it?
Aroha
Keith.
Michael Mossey
May 31, 2012, 4:12:29 PM5/31/12
to rext...@gmail.com, alex...@googlegroups.com
On 5/31/2012 5:25 AM, Rex Alexander wrote:
Thu 31 May 2012, 6:59 pm
. Concepts as basic to AT as "primary control" have never been established as anything beyond speculation and opinion. It's like "chi" and similar concepts; many people are absolutely convinced that these are actual phenomenon, but in spite of strong, passionate opinion, and wishful thinking, they have not been established as anything more than belief.
I'm not an AT teacher, but have taken many lessons and really respect it. May I point something out? I think of AT as something *experiential" as opposed to "theoretical." The ideas of "primary control" and "chi" are *theoretical" explanations of an experience. I think of AT (and T'ai Chi) as a kind of subjective-rigorous experiment. What I mean is that they are about playing with intention and observing the result. And although the result is a subjective experience, one can apply an attitude of "be skeptical about the theory" and continue to experiment with it --- if I apply this particular intention, if I apply this particular way of focusing my attention, what happens? Is "the thing that happens" repeatable? Does it change from moment to moment? Can I investigate what factors make it change? If a certain experience is not repeatable, I can abandon the theory that it might have implied.
Also, AT involves a teacher who can provide external observation. What happens when I continue my experiments but make use of the external feedback of a teacher?
This also implies that you can't learn AT by studying it's concepts intellectually. It must be acted upon and experienced. You don't necessarily need a teacher, but you certainly need to practice and experiment.
I'm not an AT teacher so any teachers here are welcome to respond if they think I've got something wrong.
Mike
sraj
May 31, 2012, 9:15:47 PM5/31/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Rex wrote:
Concepts as basic to AT as "primary control" have never been established as anything beyond speculation and opinion...
Alexander's idea of primary control deals with the balance of the head I think; which appears to be a pretty concrete idea. (I did not find the phrase 'primary control' in MSI, did I miss it?)
I am not sure what position of the head the discipline of AT finds to be correct. But from my own experiments I would agree with Alexander that there would be a proper position of the head that would constitute a primary control, that would make it possible to synchronise all parts of the body. (I don't agree however that it is possible to obtain proper balance of the head without simultaneously correcting problems in other parts of the body, especially the lower half, which seems to be ignored by AT).
In fact, it is the position of the head we observe in most adults (which is different from the balanced position of the head we observe in children), which convinces me that most adults are getting their posture dramatically wrong. It is something any one can observe, from Shanghai to Timbuktu.
With a good computer model of the human body, it should be possible to prove that the balance of the head is crucial (thus constituting a primary control).
(I would not have agreed with Alexander's idea of primary control 1.5 years back, but with my posting of
March 29, 2011:http://headbalance.blogspot.in/, and the rapid improvement in my posture that I am now experiencing: I now agree).
Regards,
Selvaraj
--
J F Messenger
Jun 1, 2012, 2:48:46 PM6/1/12
to AlexTech Mail List
Hello
In reply to Selvaraj comment "I am not sure what position of the head
the discipline of AT finds to be correct." It may help to be reminded
that FM said : "There is no such thing as a right position, but there
is such a thing as a right direction."
With regard to the nocebo effect - every AT teacher would be wise to
attend to its possible role in a student's reason for coming for a
lessson, especially any student with chronic pain. In the last few
years neuro-scientists at the University of Turin have unveiled the
complex interactions in our biochemical and neuroendocrine mechanisms
which link anxiety to pain. The anxiety-activated neuropeptide,
cholecystokinin, (CKK), actually falicitates pain transmission.
Cognition and emotion are absolutely implicated in their studies, and
Fabrizio Benedetti, Professor of Clinical and Applied Physiology at
Turin often uses the term "psychobiology". Sounds like FM's
"psychophysical unity" to me !
Best wishes
> > *belief is powerful*, and can quite regularly produce effects which
>
> > > Hi Rex,
In reply to Selvaraj comment "I am not sure what position of the head
the discipline of AT finds to be correct." It may help to be reminded
that FM said : "There is no such thing as a right position, but there
is such a thing as a right direction."
With regard to the nocebo effect - every AT teacher would be wise to
attend to its possible role in a student's reason for coming for a
lessson, especially any student with chronic pain. In the last few
years neuro-scientists at the University of Turin have unveiled the
complex interactions in our biochemical and neuroendocrine mechanisms
which link anxiety to pain. The anxiety-activated neuropeptide,
cholecystokinin, (CKK), actually falicitates pain transmission.
Cognition and emotion are absolutely implicated in their studies, and
Fabrizio Benedetti, Professor of Clinical and Applied Physiology at
Turin often uses the term "psychobiology". Sounds like FM's
"psychophysical unity" to me !
Best wishes
> > cannot be explained. That's not a bad thing. It's a good thing, at least
> > sometimes. But it may not be so good for witch doctors because in such
> > cases, the cure comes from the patient's belief, not from whatever witchery
> > is being performed. When the patient figures that out, s/he either gets
> > depressed, or realizes he can get the same thing without the witch doctor
> > as an intermediary.
>
> > Aloha,
>
> > Rex
> > Khon Kaen, Thailand
> > rextu...@gmail.com
> > sometimes. But it may not be so good for witch doctors because in such
> > cases, the cure comes from the patient's belief, not from whatever witchery
> > is being performed. When the patient figures that out, s/he either gets
> > depressed, or realizes he can get the same thing without the witch doctor
> > as an intermediary.
>
> > Aloha,
>
> > Rex
> > Khon Kaen, Thailand
>
> > > Hi Rex,
Tim Kjeldsen
Jun 3, 2012, 6:47:27 AM6/3/12
to Alextech list
On 31/05/2012 13:25, "Rex Alexander" <rext...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is true that the ‘primary control’ is not a concept that is immediately translatable into current physiological and biomechanical language, and that there is a lively debate over its exact nature as Alexander conceived it and to what degree it conforms to current physiological and biomechanical understanding. But there is no doubt that the head/neck relationship is critical in the maintenance of bodily balance and equilibrium, and if that were to be all of Alexander’s ‘primary control’ that survived scientific investigation, it would still be more than enough to explain and justify the priority he gave it and Alexander teachers have since given it. It is inappropriate to equate it with “chi”, which, so far as we know, has no anatomical or physiological counterpart, whereas Alexander’s ‘primary control’ clearly has, even though its precise status and nature remains to be fully explored..
More generally, there is a growing body of scientific evidence both of the Alexander Technique’s effectiveness and of the underlying principles and procedures that explain that effectiveness. The claim in your first sentence above is in itself, of course, too intangible to be proved one way or another. Alexander wrote over 1000 pages, and I’m not going to argue what percentage of the assertions in those pages are tangible enough to be proved one way or the other. But I will assert that the core theory as set out in those pages is every bit tangible enough to be rigorously tested. Alexander claimed that his work was:
and, whilst this claim still remains to be widely substantiated, the theory is eminently testable and is presently being tested. It has, so far, proved itself rather well, although there is still a long way to go.
Tim
[M]ost of [Alexander’s] assertions are not tangible enough to be proved one way or the other. Concepts as basic to AT as "primary control" have never been established as anything beyond speculation and opinion. It's like "chi" and similar concepts; many people are absolutely convinced that these are actual phenomenon, but in spite of strong, passionate opinion, and wishful thinking, they have not been established as anything more than belief.
It is true that the ‘primary control’ is not a concept that is immediately translatable into current physiological and biomechanical language, and that there is a lively debate over its exact nature as Alexander conceived it and to what degree it conforms to current physiological and biomechanical understanding. But there is no doubt that the head/neck relationship is critical in the maintenance of bodily balance and equilibrium, and if that were to be all of Alexander’s ‘primary control’ that survived scientific investigation, it would still be more than enough to explain and justify the priority he gave it and Alexander teachers have since given it. It is inappropriate to equate it with “chi”, which, so far as we know, has no anatomical or physiological counterpart, whereas Alexander’s ‘primary control’ clearly has, even though its precise status and nature remains to be fully explored..
More generally, there is a growing body of scientific evidence both of the Alexander Technique’s effectiveness and of the underlying principles and procedures that explain that effectiveness. The claim in your first sentence above is in itself, of course, too intangible to be proved one way or another. Alexander wrote over 1000 pages, and I’m not going to argue what percentage of the assertions in those pages are tangible enough to be proved one way or the other. But I will assert that the core theory as set out in those pages is every bit tangible enough to be rigorously tested. Alexander claimed that his work was:
...no esoteric doctrine or mystical cult, but a synthesis of entirely reasonable propositions that can be demonstrated in pure theory and substantiated in common practice.
and, whilst this claim still remains to be widely substantiated, the theory is eminently testable and is presently being tested. It has, so far, proved itself rather well, although there is still a long way to go.
Tim
--
sraj
Jun 3, 2012, 2:02:55 PM6/3/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
In 1901, while in Germany, Magnus discovered the diuretic effect of the excretions of the pituitary gland.[3] From 1908, Rudolf Magnus worked in Liverpool on the physiology of posture and muscle tension.
Although he was a pharmacologist, this research made him world famous.
For his work, he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1927. His sudden
death in 1927 made it impossible to award the prize to him. His most
famous book, Körperstellung, was published in Berlin in 1924, and translated into English in 1987. In this book Magnus describes the reflexes involved in mammal posture. The Magnus & De Kleijn reflexes are named after Magnus and his colleague de Kleijn.
The head and neck reflexes of mammals cause the body to follow
automatically when the head moves. He also researched the reflexes of
the intestines and phenomena such as motion sickness.
...L
Interesting, that the Nobel Prize committee even entertained the idea of awarding a Nobel Prize for Postural Studies
:-)
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 1 June 2012 17:04, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
Hello,
Alexander came up with the term "primary control" inspired by the work of Rudolf Magnus. It could be argued that it was a mistake.
Alexander uses the term in a talk in 1926 called An Unrecognised Principle (see Articles and Lectures). He writes about Primary Control in The Use of the Self, 1931.
Regards,
Halvard Heggdal
----- Original message -----
From: sraj <sra...@gmail.com>
To: alex...@googlegroups.com
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 06:45:47 +0530
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] : Is MSI the most important book ever written?
Rex Alexander
Jun 3, 2012, 7:42:19 PM6/3/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Mon 4 Jun 2012, 6:26 am
Good Morning Tim, All,
Thank you for yours.
I have never heard where FMA's original observations, working notes and detailed analyses are archived. Are these available to researchers for serious study? The 1,000 pages you refer to certainly contain accounts and anecdotes of FMA's work with some of his clients as well as descriptions of his work on himself explaining how he developed the technique. I don't claim to be an expert on FMA's writings, however I have not come upon anything like detailed case studies that demonstrate the scientific rigor that FMA claims and that others claim on his behalf.
I am thinking of the sort of careful observations that 19th Century researchers the likes of Darwin left us. I assume that these studies and working notes as apply to AT exist somewhere and are available. Yes?
> More generally, there is a growing body of scientific evidence both
> of the Alexander Technique's effectiveness and of the underlying
> principles and procedures that explain that effectiveness. The
> claim in your first sentence above is in itself, of course, too
> intangible to be proved one way or another. Alexander wrote over
> 1000 pages, and I'm not going to argue what percentage of the
> assertions in those pages are tangible enough to be proved one way
John Coffin
Jun 3, 2012, 9:29:54 PM6/3/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hello list;
I know I am nipping in late on this, but my email showed Rex's opening sentence when my cursor passed over the title.
Nothing like the 'original observations, working notes and detailed analyses' that Rex seems to demand exist for Darwin either, nor Gregor Mendel or Isaac Newton and Einstein for that matter. Alexander's discovery was not done in a laboratory, nor was it reported in academic papers reviewed by whatever peers might have been found. Few, if any, scientific discoveries made before 1950 would match Rex's requirements.
Alexander's descriptions suggest the possibility of replication--no secret processes or out-of-the-blue revelations are involved anywhere. FP Jones, Chris Stevens and others have shown that the phenomena reported by Alexander have demonstrable objective reality. Alexander's core observations are consilient with all subsequent knowledge of physiology-neurology-psychology.
There are no magical entities, mystical 'energies,' leprachauns or unicorns involved in the Technique. Those most qualified to find fault in the Technique have not done so. From Sir Charles Sherrington through TDM Roberts and beyond.
Faulty sensory appreciation is a commonplace. The importance of the head-neck in coordination is not disputed by anyone (except for would-be heretics on this list). What is specific to the Technique, indeed what IS the Technique is the use of conscious inhibition to change habitual activity, and the non-verbal aspect of instruction.
John Coffin
PS: This topic has obviously drifted far from the original question. Maybe the topic should be 'Excuses for not reading Alexander,' or perhaps 'Why the Technique is whatever I say it is?'
--- On Sun, 6/3/12, Rex Alexander <rext...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Rex Alexander
Jun 3, 2012, 10:38:19 PM6/3/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Mon 4 Jun 2012, 9:23 am
I don't object to what FMA did. And I "demand" nothing, sir. I merely raise the question. I question his claim, and the claim by others on his behalf, of "rigorous science." If the science is indeed rigorous--even by 19th Century standards--there are careful-if-not-meticulous notes documenting every step of process of discovery from the beginning through the end. This was not unusual, as you suggest John. In fact, it was entirely standard for anyone who was academically grounded and wanted to be taken seriously. Many such researchers were competent illustrators, as well, or had such working with them. If FMA spent "years" developing the technique, doing this careful, scientific observation, there would be many more pages of notes than the 1,000 meandering published pages Tim refers to. Did FMA keep notes or not? If so, are they available? It's fine to say "Oh, I did careful observations for years, and here are my conclusions." It is quite another thing to say, "I did careful observations for years, and here is the documentation of exactly what I observed, what I did, what I concluded, and how I applied it."
If for whatever reason, FMA preferred not to document his work in this way, fine. But if that is the case, then ixnay the claim that it is "scientific."
Halvard Heggdal
Jun 4, 2012, 3:17:22 AM6/4/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com, jbco...@prodigy.net
Hello,
Maybe I'm one of your "would-be heretics"?
I think there is something we can call a "primary control". That I experience
in every lesson I teach.
The problem with introducing "primary control" was that it easily overshadowes
useful concepts like antagonistic action and mechanical advantage. The Primary
Control should be viewed as a development of these earlier concepts. Alexander
wrote about "relativity" when writing about the Primary Control. To begin with
he maybe focused too much on only the head. One gets that impression when reading
the talks in Articles and Lectures. I wonder if Alexander would have come up with
something like the Primary Conrol without the inspiration from Magnus, but maby
in a healthier and more wholistic way, a more natural development from his earlier
concepts. The introduction of the Primary Control looks like a detour.
It is interesting that he changed one of the description of the Primary Control
in the 1946 edition of The Use of the Self. The version sold today is the 1931 edition.
The most common definition of the Primary Control is "the head-neck-back
relationship". I think we should expand this idea and define the Primary Control
as something like:
The process, or processes, that organise the human system in relation to gravity.
Head balance and head-neck-back relativity are important (and tangible) factors in this process.
Regards,
Halvard
Maybe I'm one of your "would-be heretics"?
I think there is something we can call a "primary control". That I experience
in every lesson I teach.
The problem with introducing "primary control" was that it easily overshadowes
useful concepts like antagonistic action and mechanical advantage. The Primary
Control should be viewed as a development of these earlier concepts. Alexander
wrote about "relativity" when writing about the Primary Control. To begin with
he maybe focused too much on only the head. One gets that impression when reading
the talks in Articles and Lectures. I wonder if Alexander would have come up with
something like the Primary Conrol without the inspiration from Magnus, but maby
in a healthier and more wholistic way, a more natural development from his earlier
concepts. The introduction of the Primary Control looks like a detour.
It is interesting that he changed one of the description of the Primary Control
in the 1946 edition of The Use of the Self. The version sold today is the 1931 edition.
The most common definition of the Primary Control is "the head-neck-back
relationship". I think we should expand this idea and define the Primary Control
as something like:
The process, or processes, that organise the human system in relation to gravity.
Head balance and head-neck-back relativity are important (and tangible) factors in this process.
Regards,
Halvard
Tim Kjeldsen
Jun 8, 2012, 3:47:28 AM6/8/12
to Alextech list
Hello Rex and all
Sorry this has taken a little time. I’ve actually given it quite a lot of thought; although the relatively brief response that has finally emerged may not convey that.
As I guess you probably already either know or suspect, there is no archive of the sort you describe. To my knowledge, Alexander did not keep detailed contemporaneous notes of his original investigations, nor detailed records of his teaching*. I take it from your raising the matter, that you would consider such records a criterion of scientific rigour, and I think you would have a fair point: Alexander was not a scientist and didn’t think that he was doing science with his original enquiry, merely using all his faculties to solve a pressing problem. If he had done, then he may have kept more detailed records, and we would undoubtedly have all benefited from them. As it is, we only have an account written some forty years after the event of how he developed the Technique.
So, I think you are right that Alexander’s investigations were not self-consciously scientific in motivation or execution in the sense that, say, Darwin’s or Mendel’s were. Whatever scientific status or value they have has to be recovered, as it were, post hoc. This recovery is feasible, though, because they are scientific, we might say, ‘in spirit’, in that he did go about them systematically and, as a result, made discoveries and developed procedures that have proved robust and, crucially, lend themselves to further empirical testing. A colleague once described them as ‘proto-scientific’, and I think this is a fair judgement.
But acknowledging this shouldn’t detract from the value and importance of the texts we do have, which do explain the methods, discoveries and procedures in a way which is ‘tangible enough to be proved one way or the other’. And that was all I was wanting to point out in my reply to your original remarks.
Tim
* The chapter ‘The Stutterer’ in Use of the Self, whilst not supported by contemporaneous notes, is nonetheless far more than merely anecdotal; it is an individual case study that shows the principles of the Technique in operation in considerable detail.
Sorry this has taken a little time. I’ve actually given it quite a lot of thought; although the relatively brief response that has finally emerged may not convey that.
As I guess you probably already either know or suspect, there is no archive of the sort you describe. To my knowledge, Alexander did not keep detailed contemporaneous notes of his original investigations, nor detailed records of his teaching*. I take it from your raising the matter, that you would consider such records a criterion of scientific rigour, and I think you would have a fair point: Alexander was not a scientist and didn’t think that he was doing science with his original enquiry, merely using all his faculties to solve a pressing problem. If he had done, then he may have kept more detailed records, and we would undoubtedly have all benefited from them. As it is, we only have an account written some forty years after the event of how he developed the Technique.
So, I think you are right that Alexander’s investigations were not self-consciously scientific in motivation or execution in the sense that, say, Darwin’s or Mendel’s were. Whatever scientific status or value they have has to be recovered, as it were, post hoc. This recovery is feasible, though, because they are scientific, we might say, ‘in spirit’, in that he did go about them systematically and, as a result, made discoveries and developed procedures that have proved robust and, crucially, lend themselves to further empirical testing. A colleague once described them as ‘proto-scientific’, and I think this is a fair judgement.
But acknowledging this shouldn’t detract from the value and importance of the texts we do have, which do explain the methods, discoveries and procedures in a way which is ‘tangible enough to be proved one way or the other’. And that was all I was wanting to point out in my reply to your original remarks.
Tim
* The chapter ‘The Stutterer’ in Use of the Self, whilst not supported by contemporaneous notes, is nonetheless far more than merely anecdotal; it is an individual case study that shows the principles of the Technique in operation in considerable detail.
--
Keith Bacon
Jun 8, 2012, 8:22:51 AM6/8/12
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi all,
On 8 June 2012 08:47, Tim Kjeldsen <tim.kj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexander was not a scientist and didn’t think that he was doing science with his
> original enquiry....
I took the extract at the bottom of this message from:-
http://www.alexandertechnique.org.za/medical.htm
Dr Nikolaas Tinbergen, Nobel Prize winner for medicine in 1973,
devoted half of his Nobel Prize acceptance speech to the Alexander
Technique.
Alexander was a pioneering scientist who discovered things which are
only just beginning to make their way into orthodox science and will
take a very long time to do so. Tinbergen a doctor references Dr
Barlows work this is the beginning of peer review or FMA discoveries
etc.
This is fringe science and the more it is studied and hopefully
validated the more it will move towards being orthodox science. I am
sure when it is studied more some of the current knowledge of AT will
be debunked and much of it will be validated. Same for all the other
somatic disciplines.
The anecdotal evidence is very strong, higher quality evidence will
emerge eventually.
Dr Tinbergen's speech...
= = = = = = = = =
"This story of perceptivenss, of intelligence and of persistance shown
by a man without medical training is one of the true epics of medical
research and practice....Many types of underperformance and even
ailments, both mental and physical, can be alleviated by teaching the
body musculature to function differently...The evidence documented by
Alexander and Dr Wilfred Barlow shows beneficial effects on a varietry
of functions, including the "rag bag" of rheumatism; various forms of
arthritis, respiratory troubles, and even potentially lethal asthma;
circulation defects, which may lead to high blood pressure and also to
some dangerous heart conditions; gastrointestinal disorders; various
gynaecological conditions; sexual failures; migraines and depressive
states; in short, a very wide spectrum of diseases, both somatic and
mental, that are not caused by identifiable parasites."
"While no one would claim that the Alexander work is a cure-all in
every case, there can be no doubt that it often does have profound and
beneficial effects, both in the mental and physical sphere. "
(Tinbergen, quoted in "More Talk of Alexander", by Dr Wilfred Barlow)
On 8 June 2012 08:47, Tim Kjeldsen <tim.kj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexander was not a scientist and didn’t think that he was doing science with his
I took the extract at the bottom of this message from:-
http://www.alexandertechnique.org.za/medical.htm
Dr Nikolaas Tinbergen, Nobel Prize winner for medicine in 1973,
devoted half of his Nobel Prize acceptance speech to the Alexander
Technique.
Alexander was a pioneering scientist who discovered things which are
only just beginning to make their way into orthodox science and will
take a very long time to do so. Tinbergen a doctor references Dr
Barlows work this is the beginning of peer review or FMA discoveries
etc.
This is fringe science and the more it is studied and hopefully
validated the more it will move towards being orthodox science. I am
sure when it is studied more some of the current knowledge of AT will
be debunked and much of it will be validated. Same for all the other
somatic disciplines.
The anecdotal evidence is very strong, higher quality evidence will
emerge eventually.
Dr Tinbergen's speech...
= = = = = = = = =
"This story of perceptivenss, of intelligence and of persistance shown
by a man without medical training is one of the true epics of medical
research and practice....Many types of underperformance and even
ailments, both mental and physical, can be alleviated by teaching the
body musculature to function differently...The evidence documented by
Alexander and Dr Wilfred Barlow shows beneficial effects on a varietry
of functions, including the "rag bag" of rheumatism; various forms of
arthritis, respiratory troubles, and even potentially lethal asthma;
circulation defects, which may lead to high blood pressure and also to
some dangerous heart conditions; gastrointestinal disorders; various
gynaecological conditions; sexual failures; migraines and depressive
states; in short, a very wide spectrum of diseases, both somatic and
mental, that are not caused by identifiable parasites."
"While no one would claim that the Alexander work is a cure-all in
every case, there can be no doubt that it often does have profound and
beneficial effects, both in the mental and physical sphere. "
(Tinbergen, quoted in "More Talk of Alexander", by Dr Wilfred Barlow)
Tim Kjeldsen
Jun 8, 2012, 12:50:38 PM6/8/12
to Alextech list
Hi Keith
Tinbergen wasn't a medical doctor; he studied animal behaviour in natural
habitats. In fact, with Konrad Lorenz, he was the founder of the science of
ethology. His sponsorship of Alexander is very important, since the point of
talking about the Technique in his Nobel Prize speech was precisely to
emphasis that science doesn't have to come with all the trappings of
institutions and technology, nor happen within accepted frameworks of
enquiry. He and Lorenz struggled for decades to get their work taken
seriously by the biological establishment that largely treated them as
glorified bird-watchers.
All this is very pertinent to the scientific status of Alexander's work. I
don't thing there is any question that Alexander's original investigations
and subsequent teaching were thoroughly scientific in spirit. He did all the
core stuff of looking at the evidence, framing hypotheses, creating
experiments and then amending his hypotheses according to the results. He
was clearly remorselessly systematic and approached his work with a great
deal of integrity.
Nevertheless, I think Rex was right to point out that this still falls short
of standards of scientific rigour in terms of documentation. It's easy to
say that with hindsight, of course; at the time, no doubt Alexander was
simply focussed on solving his problem and saving his career, not in meeting
academic standards for scientific enquiry. Actually, I think this is a
strength, not weakness. A great deal of scientific enquiry, especially in
the human sciences is driven by rather abstract conceptions of what counts
as useful scientific knowledge. It was because Alexander's criterion of
knowledge was inseparable from success at overcoming his problems that his
thinking became focussed in the way that it did and led to him bringing to
light phenomena that still seems to elude 'proper' scientists.
Still, it would have been great to have had more than a thirty page account
of his investigations written forty years after the event. Not that there
isn't a lifetime of study in that alone, leave alone the rest of the texts.
Tim
--
Tinbergen wasn't a medical doctor; he studied animal behaviour in natural
habitats. In fact, with Konrad Lorenz, he was the founder of the science of
ethology. His sponsorship of Alexander is very important, since the point of
talking about the Technique in his Nobel Prize speech was precisely to
emphasis that science doesn't have to come with all the trappings of
institutions and technology, nor happen within accepted frameworks of
enquiry. He and Lorenz struggled for decades to get their work taken
seriously by the biological establishment that largely treated them as
glorified bird-watchers.
All this is very pertinent to the scientific status of Alexander's work. I
don't thing there is any question that Alexander's original investigations
and subsequent teaching were thoroughly scientific in spirit. He did all the
core stuff of looking at the evidence, framing hypotheses, creating
experiments and then amending his hypotheses according to the results. He
was clearly remorselessly systematic and approached his work with a great
deal of integrity.
Nevertheless, I think Rex was right to point out that this still falls short
of standards of scientific rigour in terms of documentation. It's easy to
say that with hindsight, of course; at the time, no doubt Alexander was
simply focussed on solving his problem and saving his career, not in meeting
academic standards for scientific enquiry. Actually, I think this is a
strength, not weakness. A great deal of scientific enquiry, especially in
the human sciences is driven by rather abstract conceptions of what counts
as useful scientific knowledge. It was because Alexander's criterion of
knowledge was inseparable from success at overcoming his problems that his
thinking became focussed in the way that it did and led to him bringing to
light phenomena that still seems to elude 'proper' scientists.
Still, it would have been great to have had more than a thirty page account
of his investigations written forty years after the event. Not that there
isn't a lifetime of study in that alone, leave alone the rest of the texts.
Tim
Keith Bacon
Jun 18, 2012, 12:29:18 PM6/18/12
to Alextech list
Hi Tim,
On 8 June 2012 17:50, Tim Kjeldsen <tim.kj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tinbergen wasn't a medical doctor; he studied animal behaviour in natural
> habitats.
Thanks for the correction.
From the Nobel prize web site
"The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1973 was awarded jointly to
Karl von Frisch, Konrad Lorenz and Nikolaas Tinbergen "for their
discoveries concerning organization and elicitation of individual and
social behaviour patterns".
I read parts of this, it seems the prize was actually awarded for medicine.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1973/tinbergen-lecture.pdf
He wasn't a medical doctor but understood things that should be part
of medicine and still aren't.
The stuff about Aspergers is amazing. I met a lady diagnosed with it
last night and told her to google on Tinbergen and Aspergers. For the
good of the world I hope the link between stress and various diseases
gets studied.
It's interesting that Tinbergen's view of AT is not the normal view
portrayed now.
regards,
Keith
On 8 June 2012 17:50, Tim Kjeldsen <tim.kj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tinbergen wasn't a medical doctor; he studied animal behaviour in natural
> habitats.
From the Nobel prize web site
"The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1973 was awarded jointly to
Karl von Frisch, Konrad Lorenz and Nikolaas Tinbergen "for their
discoveries concerning organization and elicitation of individual and
social behaviour patterns".
I read parts of this, it seems the prize was actually awarded for medicine.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1973/tinbergen-lecture.pdf
He wasn't a medical doctor but understood things that should be part
of medicine and still aren't.
The stuff about Aspergers is amazing. I met a lady diagnosed with it
last night and told her to google on Tinbergen and Aspergers. For the
good of the world I hope the link between stress and various diseases
gets studied.
It's interesting that Tinbergen's view of AT is not the normal view
portrayed now.
regards,
Keith
Halvard Heggdal
Jun 18, 2012, 1:05:12 PM6/18/12
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hello,
Tinbergen seems to be diagnosed with the "nobel disease"
for supporting the Refrigerator Mother” hypothesis of autism:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
Intererstingly he is not seen as a crank for supporing the
Alexander technique.
Regards,
Halvard Heggdal
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: Alextech list <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:29:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] : Is MSI the most important book ever written?
Tinbergen seems to be diagnosed with the "nobel disease"
for supporting the Refrigerator Mother” hypothesis of autism:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
Intererstingly he is not seen as a crank for supporing the
Alexander technique.
Regards,
Halvard Heggdal
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: Alextech list <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:29:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] : Is MSI the most important book ever written?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages