The Eyebody Method part 1
254 views
Skip to first unread message
Halvard Heggdal
Apr 28, 2014, 8:39:37 AM4/28/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Hello list,
I re-post the link to my article on the Eyebody method as it apparently
ended up in the wrong thread.
http://alexanderteknikk.blogspot.no/2014/04/eyebody-part-1.html
Regards,
Halvard Heggdal
I re-post the link to my article on the Eyebody method as it apparently
ended up in the wrong thread.
http://alexanderteknikk.blogspot.no/2014/04/eyebody-part-1.html
Regards,
Halvard Heggdal
Keith Bacon
Apr 28, 2014, 10:57:27 AM4/28/14
to Halvard Heggdal, AlexTech Mail List
Hi Halvard and everyone.
On 28 April 2014 13:39, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> http://alexanderteknikk.blogspot.no/2014/04/eyebody-part-1.html
I have commented on just some aspects of this article.
> By practicing the Alexander Technique one realises,
> or should realise, that there is a limit to what
> one can feel.
> Sensing the optic nerves is definitely
> beyond those limits....
Grunewald openly says he uses meditation along with AT and
some people learn hyper awareness of proprioception using meditation.
> Is it possible to discern ones thalamus from ones limbic system?
> Or actually feel those structures or those structures working?
> Very unlikely.
I can't myself but I suspect that if there are propioceptors in these places
some people with enough training could.
> Is it possible to register brain activity from outside,
> without EEG or advanced scanning equipment? Not very likely.
How does an AT teacher sense what is going on inside a pupil?
How do they influence a pupils system via their hands?
Perhaps Grunwald utilises the same mechanism(s) but has greater sensitivity.
> Can the bones of the skull move just because of brain
> activity beneath?
AT teachers know that thinking/feeling and muscular activity occur together.
I think the skull is covered in a thin layer of muscle....
> If most people slump it is not because of the shape of their
> brains. There are simpler and more plausible explanations
Presumably it is the tension which gives rise to the shape.
Misuse in one area is accompanied my by misuse in another area.
Sometimes one causes the other, some times both are the product of a
deeper underlying misuse - which is what he says is going on around
the brain.
A yogi with tremendous sensitivity told me 'Every piece of tension inside my
cranium has a corresponding area in the rest of my body'.
As soon as he said it I thought - Ah this sounds like Grunewalds claims!
I can feel similar correspondences in some parts of my body (but not
inside my head) which makes this easier to believe.
> It is important to have a vision. My vision is that Alexander
> Technique teachers all over the world abolish pseudoscience,
> of which Peter Grunwald is such an avid proponent.
I think he is only proposing theories. This is 'fringe science'.
The way science is progressing with studies of yoga and meditation is
heartening. A lot of the science is no longer 'fringe'.
AT seems to lack clear propositions that invite scientific scrutiny
and I think this is a failing.
I have been intrigued by Grunwald for a long time but I have not spent
many hours on his method, had lessons with him or noticeably improved
my eyesight with somatic work. I wonder how much his ideas of Concious
Depth Perception relate to the ideas in Focusing and the concept of
'expanded conciousness' in yoga.
The idea of being simultaneously aware of something, aware of your
perceiving of it and the somatic effect it has is ancient - it is
Mindfulness.
I regard his endorsement of AT as a credit to AT. It's possible he may
one day be regarded as a person who built on Alexander's work and took
it further using his meditation skills.
I remain sceptical as I'm not sure how many people he has really helped with
vision and would like to see some reliable studies.
I also rate methods by their ability to be passed down through generations,
which proves they have some universality and aren't a product of some
freak talent or ability to con people.
One thing I do know is that people with greater proprioceptive
awareness than me know things by direct experience that I don't.
Judging by his writing I think Grunwald is such a person.
Such explorations may not be part of AT. To use principles of AT to denounce
the work of people who do this work is I think not appropriate. This
aspect is more in the field of yoga/meditation where cultivation of
proprioceptive awareness is a highly developed field and Grunwalds
work is much in alignment with aspects of them.
Hopefully the steadily increase in scientific study and explanation
will let us know the truth before too long.
To me Grunwalds work is fascinating and shows that no one somatic
system has it all.
No one person can know it all.
There are so many systems and we are so complex that there are
overlaps between the various systems.
Taking somatic 'control' of eyesight is a kind of somatic 'holy grail'
for me. So few people claim to have done so. Despite all sorts of
benefits I do not have control of mine and I don't think I met anyone
in the AT world who did. I've heard of it in the yoga world but not
met someone directly who has improved their eyesight. Grunwald might
be someone special but I don't know enough to judge.
Keith.
On 28 April 2014 13:39, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> http://alexanderteknikk.blogspot.no/2014/04/eyebody-part-1.html
I have commented on just some aspects of this article.
> By practicing the Alexander Technique one realises,
> or should realise, that there is a limit to what
> one can feel.
> Sensing the optic nerves is definitely
> beyond those limits....
Grunewald openly says he uses meditation along with AT and
some people learn hyper awareness of proprioception using meditation.
> Is it possible to discern ones thalamus from ones limbic system?
> Or actually feel those structures or those structures working?
> Very unlikely.
I can't myself but I suspect that if there are propioceptors in these places
some people with enough training could.
> Is it possible to register brain activity from outside,
> without EEG or advanced scanning equipment? Not very likely.
How does an AT teacher sense what is going on inside a pupil?
How do they influence a pupils system via their hands?
Perhaps Grunwald utilises the same mechanism(s) but has greater sensitivity.
> Can the bones of the skull move just because of brain
> activity beneath?
AT teachers know that thinking/feeling and muscular activity occur together.
I think the skull is covered in a thin layer of muscle....
> If most people slump it is not because of the shape of their
> brains. There are simpler and more plausible explanations
Presumably it is the tension which gives rise to the shape.
Misuse in one area is accompanied my by misuse in another area.
Sometimes one causes the other, some times both are the product of a
deeper underlying misuse - which is what he says is going on around
the brain.
A yogi with tremendous sensitivity told me 'Every piece of tension inside my
cranium has a corresponding area in the rest of my body'.
As soon as he said it I thought - Ah this sounds like Grunewalds claims!
I can feel similar correspondences in some parts of my body (but not
inside my head) which makes this easier to believe.
> It is important to have a vision. My vision is that Alexander
> Technique teachers all over the world abolish pseudoscience,
> of which Peter Grunwald is such an avid proponent.
I think he is only proposing theories. This is 'fringe science'.
The way science is progressing with studies of yoga and meditation is
heartening. A lot of the science is no longer 'fringe'.
AT seems to lack clear propositions that invite scientific scrutiny
and I think this is a failing.
I have been intrigued by Grunwald for a long time but I have not spent
many hours on his method, had lessons with him or noticeably improved
my eyesight with somatic work. I wonder how much his ideas of Concious
Depth Perception relate to the ideas in Focusing and the concept of
'expanded conciousness' in yoga.
The idea of being simultaneously aware of something, aware of your
perceiving of it and the somatic effect it has is ancient - it is
Mindfulness.
I regard his endorsement of AT as a credit to AT. It's possible he may
one day be regarded as a person who built on Alexander's work and took
it further using his meditation skills.
I remain sceptical as I'm not sure how many people he has really helped with
vision and would like to see some reliable studies.
I also rate methods by their ability to be passed down through generations,
which proves they have some universality and aren't a product of some
freak talent or ability to con people.
One thing I do know is that people with greater proprioceptive
awareness than me know things by direct experience that I don't.
Judging by his writing I think Grunwald is such a person.
Such explorations may not be part of AT. To use principles of AT to denounce
the work of people who do this work is I think not appropriate. This
aspect is more in the field of yoga/meditation where cultivation of
proprioceptive awareness is a highly developed field and Grunwalds
work is much in alignment with aspects of them.
Hopefully the steadily increase in scientific study and explanation
will let us know the truth before too long.
To me Grunwalds work is fascinating and shows that no one somatic
system has it all.
No one person can know it all.
There are so many systems and we are so complex that there are
overlaps between the various systems.
Taking somatic 'control' of eyesight is a kind of somatic 'holy grail'
for me. So few people claim to have done so. Despite all sorts of
benefits I do not have control of mine and I don't think I met anyone
in the AT world who did. I've heard of it in the yoga world but not
met someone directly who has improved their eyesight. Grunwald might
be someone special but I don't know enough to judge.
Keith.
Halvard Heggdal
Apr 29, 2014, 5:00:30 PM4/29/14
to keith...@gmail.com, alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi Keith, list,
I'm refering to principles of the AT especially in the beginning
of the article to show that it is very likely that Grunwald did not
feel what he believed he was feeling. I can't see how this is
'not appropriate'.
There are no proprioceptors inside the brain to account for what
Grunwald claims he can know. It is much more likely that it is
a product of his imagination.
You say that:
“I also rate methods by their ability to be passed down through
This an untenable way of rating methods. Something isn't correct just
because it is old. Science work by testing ideas and scrapping old ones
that doesn't hold true. In fact, scrapping old ideas is a prerequisite for
any progress. This is true both for knowledge in general, and the
Alexander Technique in particular. The AT is to a very high degree
about getting rid of the things you don't need.
The Eyebody method should also be tested, and critisised, so that
we can find out whether we should scrap it or not.
For over 15 years Peter Grunwald has been presenting fantastic
claims. There has been, as far as I know, no critique of his ideas.
Considering how fantastic his claims are, this is quite remarkable.
It is high time the AT community becomes aware of what he is
actually saying.
Regards,
Halvard
I'm refering to principles of the AT especially in the beginning
of the article to show that it is very likely that Grunwald did not
feel what he believed he was feeling. I can't see how this is
'not appropriate'.
There are no proprioceptors inside the brain to account for what
Grunwald claims he can know. It is much more likely that it is
a product of his imagination.
You say that:
“I also rate methods by their ability to be passed down through
generations,
which proves they have some universality and aren't a product of some
freak talent or ability to con people.”
which proves they have some universality and aren't a product of some
This an untenable way of rating methods. Something isn't correct just
because it is old. Science work by testing ideas and scrapping old ones
that doesn't hold true. In fact, scrapping old ideas is a prerequisite for
any progress. This is true both for knowledge in general, and the
Alexander Technique in particular. The AT is to a very high degree
about getting rid of the things you don't need.
The Eyebody method should also be tested, and critisised, so that
we can find out whether we should scrap it or not.
For over 15 years Peter Grunwald has been presenting fantastic
claims. There has been, as far as I know, no critique of his ideas.
Considering how fantastic his claims are, this is quite remarkable.
It is high time the AT community becomes aware of what he is
actually saying.
Regards,
Halvard
Bruce Marshall
Apr 29, 2014, 5:36:16 PM4/29/14
to hal...@alexanderinfo.no, keith...@gmail.com, alex...@googlegroups.com
I applaud Halvard's work.
Bruce Marshall
From: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>
To: keith...@gmail.com
Cc: alex...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:00 PM
Bruce Marshall
From: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>
To: keith...@gmail.com
Cc: alex...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:00 PM
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Keith Bacon
Apr 30, 2014, 9:23:02 AM4/30/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi all,
On 29 April 2014 22:00, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>
to develop great awareness of proprioception and possibly other
things. I was just saying this is not the area in which AT deals.
You say 'It is very likely' but that is just an opinion from someone
who is an AT expert but not I think a meditation expert. I assume you
don't have the depth of proprioceptive awareness Grunwald has.
> There are no proprioceptors inside the brain to account for what
> Grunwald claims he can know. It is much more likely that it is
> a product of his imagination.
The area of developing extreme inner awareness is something I know
exists but have only experienced the early stages of. It is enough to
make me less sceptical of such claims as I once was. I think there
may be a mechanism due to the interation of the EM field from currents
in the brain and currents where there are proprioceptors. Once again
this is outside the field of AT.
I will await psychophysiological research to see if claims about this
sort of thing have a feasibe mechanism.
>> You say that:
>> “I also rate methods by their ability to be passed down through
>> generations,
>> which proves they have some universality and aren't a product of some
>> freak talent or ability to con people.”
>
> This an untenable way of rating methods. Something isn't correct just
> because it is old.
It is a test AT passes to some degree. If something lasts a long time
it is either valid or panders to human weakness or is a mix of both.
While science has not caught up with things it's a yardstick. I should
not have said 'proves' but indicates a possibility. If Grunwald trains
many teachers who train other teachers then there is much more likely
to be somethig universal in his claims. If not what he says could
still be right but very few people can develop his level of
sensitivity.
As I say I don't know if his work is valid or not but do know any
denouncement of it in purely AT terms is not that relevant. I would
take opinions from advanced meditators (or anyone else) with a very
high degree of proprioceptive awareness more seriously.
cheers,
Keith
> The Eyebody method should also be tested, and critisised, so that
> we can find out whether we should scrap it or not.
We live in an age where science is just beginning to be able to make
such judgements. But for now we judge on flimsy grounds.
On 29 April 2014 22:00, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>
>
> I'm refering to principles of the AT especially in the beginning
> of the article to show that it is very likely that Grunwald did not
> feel what he believed he was feeling. I can't see how this is
> 'not appropriate'.
What Grunwald talks about is things felt by people who use meditation
> I'm refering to principles of the AT especially in the beginning
> of the article to show that it is very likely that Grunwald did not
> feel what he believed he was feeling. I can't see how this is
> 'not appropriate'.
to develop great awareness of proprioception and possibly other
things. I was just saying this is not the area in which AT deals.
You say 'It is very likely' but that is just an opinion from someone
who is an AT expert but not I think a meditation expert. I assume you
don't have the depth of proprioceptive awareness Grunwald has.
> There are no proprioceptors inside the brain to account for what
> Grunwald claims he can know. It is much more likely that it is
> a product of his imagination.
exists but have only experienced the early stages of. It is enough to
make me less sceptical of such claims as I once was. I think there
may be a mechanism due to the interation of the EM field from currents
in the brain and currents where there are proprioceptors. Once again
this is outside the field of AT.
I will await psychophysiological research to see if claims about this
sort of thing have a feasibe mechanism.
>> You say that:
>> “I also rate methods by their ability to be passed down through
>> generations,
>> which proves they have some universality and aren't a product of some
>> freak talent or ability to con people.”
>
> This an untenable way of rating methods. Something isn't correct just
> because it is old.
it is either valid or panders to human weakness or is a mix of both.
While science has not caught up with things it's a yardstick. I should
not have said 'proves' but indicates a possibility. If Grunwald trains
many teachers who train other teachers then there is much more likely
to be somethig universal in his claims. If not what he says could
still be right but very few people can develop his level of
sensitivity.
As I say I don't know if his work is valid or not but do know any
denouncement of it in purely AT terms is not that relevant. I would
take opinions from advanced meditators (or anyone else) with a very
high degree of proprioceptive awareness more seriously.
cheers,
Keith
> The Eyebody method should also be tested, and critisised, so that
> we can find out whether we should scrap it or not.
such judgements. But for now we judge on flimsy grounds.
Halvard Heggdal
Apr 30, 2014, 5:18:23 PM4/30/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, keith...@gmail.com
Hi Keith,
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. AT deals with proprioception. To be precise
– it deals with the fact that the interpretation of proprioceptive
signals is relative.
People who meditate doesn't necessarily exercise their proprioceptive
acuity.
When I say 'very likely' it is not only an opinion, it is a reasoned
opinion.
Grunwald noted the effect of thinking about his corneas without even
considering whether this idea actually had an effect on his extra occular
muscles and in that way a general effect on the muscular system. When you
observe something, you have to consider the most likely explanation. If you
can exclude this explanation, then, and only then, can you go on to
consider something less likely. This is common sense.
It is also common sense to not believe extraordinary claims without any
reasonable explanation. The claims that Grunwald presents about what is
going on inside the brain of the myopic is beyond belief:
“The upper visual cortex contracts onto the limbic system which then
presses against the reptilian brain. As a result of this the auxiliary
areas of the eye will tighten, followed by a tightening of the frontal area
of the eye. The pressure on the third ventricle causes the pupil, retina
and choroids to contract. The panoramic part of the retina receives less
light and the panoramic photoreceptors transmit less stimulation to the
thalamus. The thalamus then deflates and moves back and down, pulling the
optic nerves along with it. This creates an elongated eyeball." (Eyebody
page 61)
Grunwald must somehow be able to feel that the visual cortex contracts, and
that the limbic system presses against the reptilian brain. He must somehow
be able to feel the difference between the various parts of the brain, like
the limbic system and the thalamus.
It is not normal to sense this. When something is not normal, it is also
not very likely.
He has no reasonable explanation of this process. Why, for instance, will
the auxiliary areas of the eye tighten because of the pressure on the
reptilian brain? And why would pressure on the third ventricle cause the
pupil, retina and choroids to contract? And how could less ' stimulation'
of 'panoramic' photoreceptors cause the thalamus to 'deflate'? And why
would it then move back and down?
What he describes is the result of mechanical forces. These forces must be
created somehow. He doesn't explain how these forces can be created within
the brain, apparently just by brain activity, (or lack of brain activity).
These things happening inside the brain is not probable. It is not the way
the brain functions. It is a view of the brain which maybe would have been
accepted a hundred years ago. It is outdated.
Grunwald is claiming to feel something than is probably not happening. We
have then reason to believe that Grunwald is someone with a rich
imagination. And if a person with a rich imagination says that he can
tighten his corneas, should we believe him?
It is common sense to be sceptical in this connection.
Common sense marks the difference between openmindedness and gullibility.
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:23:02 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. AT deals with proprioception. To be precise
– it deals with the fact that the interpretation of proprioceptive
signals is relative.
People who meditate doesn't necessarily exercise their proprioceptive
acuity.
When I say 'very likely' it is not only an opinion, it is a reasoned
opinion.
Grunwald noted the effect of thinking about his corneas without even
considering whether this idea actually had an effect on his extra occular
muscles and in that way a general effect on the muscular system. When you
observe something, you have to consider the most likely explanation. If you
can exclude this explanation, then, and only then, can you go on to
consider something less likely. This is common sense.
It is also common sense to not believe extraordinary claims without any
reasonable explanation. The claims that Grunwald presents about what is
going on inside the brain of the myopic is beyond belief:
“The upper visual cortex contracts onto the limbic system which then
presses against the reptilian brain. As a result of this the auxiliary
areas of the eye will tighten, followed by a tightening of the frontal area
of the eye. The pressure on the third ventricle causes the pupil, retina
and choroids to contract. The panoramic part of the retina receives less
light and the panoramic photoreceptors transmit less stimulation to the
thalamus. The thalamus then deflates and moves back and down, pulling the
optic nerves along with it. This creates an elongated eyeball." (Eyebody
page 61)
Grunwald must somehow be able to feel that the visual cortex contracts, and
that the limbic system presses against the reptilian brain. He must somehow
be able to feel the difference between the various parts of the brain, like
the limbic system and the thalamus.
It is not normal to sense this. When something is not normal, it is also
not very likely.
He has no reasonable explanation of this process. Why, for instance, will
the auxiliary areas of the eye tighten because of the pressure on the
reptilian brain? And why would pressure on the third ventricle cause the
pupil, retina and choroids to contract? And how could less ' stimulation'
of 'panoramic' photoreceptors cause the thalamus to 'deflate'? And why
would it then move back and down?
What he describes is the result of mechanical forces. These forces must be
created somehow. He doesn't explain how these forces can be created within
the brain, apparently just by brain activity, (or lack of brain activity).
These things happening inside the brain is not probable. It is not the way
the brain functions. It is a view of the brain which maybe would have been
accepted a hundred years ago. It is outdated.
Grunwald is claiming to feel something than is probably not happening. We
have then reason to believe that Grunwald is someone with a rich
imagination. And if a person with a rich imagination says that he can
tighten his corneas, should we believe him?
It is common sense to be sceptical in this connection.
Common sense marks the difference between openmindedness and gullibility.
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:23:02 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AlexTech Mail List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AlexTech Mail List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Keith Bacon
May 1, 2014, 6:04:33 AM5/1/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi Halvard and everyone,
On 30 April 2014 22:18, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
I might be indeed. But I don't see how you can know that for sure.
> AT deals with proprioception.
It does indeed. It has even been mentioned in some AT books (Jeremy
Chance and Missy Vineyard I think).
However as far as I know people do not use AT to specifically train
to bring proprioception into consciousness in the way some people use
yoga and meditation. The discoveries made by people that have achieved
extreme levels
of proprioceptive awareness are not reported in the AT world as they
are in these areas.
> To be precise
> – it deals with the fact that the interpretation of proprioceptive
> signals is relative.
But not with directly trying to bring as much proprioception to
consciousness as possible.
> People who meditate doesn't necessarily exercise their proprioceptive
> acuity.
Those who gain increased awareness of it gain interesting insights
into their psychophysical functioning.
> When I say 'very likely' it is not only an opinion, it is a reasoned
> opinion.
It is reasoned. But to me it is reasoning without knowledge based on
genuine experiences which Grunwald MAY have had.
> It is also common sense to not believe extraordinary claims without any
> reasonable explanation. The claims that Grunwald presents about what is
> going on inside the brain of the myopic is beyond belief:
But if he is right and science proves it you will change your belief.
> What he describes is the result of mechanical forces. These forces must be
> created somehow.
Surely AT lacks explanations too? One reason. The role of our
electo-magnetic field in our functioning is scarcely understood.
Perhaps they are involved?
> Grunwald is claiming to feel something than is probably not happening.
gained through somatic experiences goes against what others without
those experiences regard as common sense.
I can't judge that much of what Grunwald claims
because I believe he has spent many years gaining experiences which I
have not had.
I have enough variablity in the malfunctioning focus of my eyes to
think it quite likely
it comes from 'misuse'.
I have had experiences of increased proprioceptive awareness that mean
I will not dismiss his claims as easily as I once would have.
If I could I would spend time studying with him to see if I could
experience what he has.
If someone proves him wrong I'l believe them.
He may have just about cracked the 'holy grail' of somatics or he may
be deluded or a conman. I am very interested in somatic discoveries so
remain curious about his work.
regards,
Keith
On 30 April 2014 22:18, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
> AT deals with proprioception.
It does indeed. It has even been mentioned in some AT books (Jeremy
Chance and Missy Vineyard I think).
However as far as I know people do not use AT to specifically train
to bring proprioception into consciousness in the way some people use
yoga and meditation. The discoveries made by people that have achieved
extreme levels
of proprioceptive awareness are not reported in the AT world as they
are in these areas.
> To be precise
> – it deals with the fact that the interpretation of proprioceptive
> signals is relative.
consciousness as possible.
> People who meditate doesn't necessarily exercise their proprioceptive
> acuity.
into their psychophysical functioning.
> When I say 'very likely' it is not only an opinion, it is a reasoned
> opinion.
genuine experiences which Grunwald MAY have had.
> It is also common sense to not believe extraordinary claims without any
> reasonable explanation. The claims that Grunwald presents about what is
> going on inside the brain of the myopic is beyond belief:
> What he describes is the result of mechanical forces. These forces must be
> created somehow.
electo-magnetic field in our functioning is scarcely understood.
Perhaps they are involved?
> Grunwald is claiming to feel something than is probably not happening.
> It is common sense to be sceptical in this connection.
>
> Common sense marks the difference between open mindedness and gullibility.
I'm sure you have experienced occasions where knowledge you have
>
> Common sense marks the difference between open mindedness and gullibility.
gained through somatic experiences goes against what others without
those experiences regard as common sense.
I can't judge that much of what Grunwald claims
because I believe he has spent many years gaining experiences which I
have not had.
I have enough variablity in the malfunctioning focus of my eyes to
think it quite likely
it comes from 'misuse'.
I have had experiences of increased proprioceptive awareness that mean
I will not dismiss his claims as easily as I once would have.
If I could I would spend time studying with him to see if I could
experience what he has.
If someone proves him wrong I'l believe them.
He may have just about cracked the 'holy grail' of somatics or he may
be deluded or a conman. I am very interested in somatic discoveries so
remain curious about his work.
regards,
Keith
John Appleton
May 1, 2014, 7:50:19 AM5/1/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com
Keith,
> I might be indeed. But I don't see how you can know that for sure.
You write this in response to Halvard stating (probably in exasperation like I feel) that you are wrong. Of course there is nothing we can know "for sure" (until your god, science, comes along and tells us) but Halvard makes several excellent points (none of which you give him credit for) which should give you some pause. But nothing gives you pause because you are not trying to clarify anything here, but rather keep it uncertain.
Halvard is not hopelessly closed-minded, though I think you may be (but I am not certain, ha-ha). He has spent hours considering Grunwald's work and you have not. You are always too busy to investigate things (including my "thing"). But he hasn't been.
What you seem closed-minded about is the thought that there may be something called clarity, that there is truth, and that there may be strong arguments that don't require waiting for "science" to "prove."
The fact that you have "enough variability in the malfunctioning focus of my eyes to think it quite likely it comes from 'misuse' " does not support Grunwald's complex claims at all. Most of AT would allow that eye problems could be part of use/misuse.
I suggest that you back off from discussions when you find yourself just repeating the same thoughts over and over and over... and over. Communication has ended at that point and banter is all that remains.
John
Halvard is not hopelessly closed-minded, though I think you may be (but I am not certain, ha-ha). He has spent hours considering Grunwald's work and you have not. You are always too busy to investigate things (including my "thing"). But he hasn't been.
What you seem closed-minded about is the thought that there may be something called clarity, that there is truth, and that there may be strong arguments that don't require waiting for "science" to "prove."
The fact that you have "enough variability in the malfunctioning focus of my eyes to think it quite likely it comes from 'misuse' " does not support Grunwald's complex claims at all. Most of AT would allow that eye problems could be part of use/misuse.
I suggest that you back off from discussions when you find yourself just repeating the same thoughts over and over and over... and over. Communication has ended at that point and banter is all that remains.
John
Joseph
May 2, 2014, 12:16:49 AM5/2/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, keith...@gmail.com
I appreciate Halvards words. I know this is off topic, I'll be brief.
I worry about the American AT community who are made up, to a very large degree, by those in the performing arts. For all their wonderful abilities, generally speaking they are not trained in the basic life sciences or the skills needed to converse with the medical and scientific community.
Having these skills does not automatically make one immune from deception - in fact having knowledge can lead to hubris. But such knowledge is indispensable if one wishes to respond appropriately to claims regarding The Next Big Thing. Without such knowledge, both the individual the community is vulnerable to deception on all sides.
Knowledge in the basic life sciences and the skills needed to converse with the medical and scientific community are not needed to be a good AT teacher. But the AT community will have to learn these skills if it wishes to leave the shadows and achieve the prominence that FM envisioned. Otherwise they will play the fool.
Like some others, I have little patience for claims and speculation that have no support from basic science. I do not mind being called "narrow minded" as it is a clear statement they have little to offer.
Keith Bacon
May 2, 2014, 9:19:52 AM5/2/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi John,
On 1 May 2014 12:50, John Appleton <ohnj.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But nothing gives you pause because you are not
> trying to clarify anything here, but rather keep it uncertain.
But it is uncertain. There is possibly a fundamental flaw in Halvards logic.
He denies Grunwals proprioceptive sensitivity but knows little about
meditation which is what people use to acquire such sensitivity.
> Halvard is not hopelessly closed-minded, though I think you may be (but I am
> not certain, ha-ha). He has spent hours considering Grunwald's work and you
> have not. You are always too busy to investigate things (including my
> "thing"). But he hasn't been.
I own the Eyebody book and have read it a number of times and dip into
it from time to time.
It fascinates me. It's one of the few things left over from my AT days
that I still read.
I didn't investigate your PRI or anything else in the AT world because
it comes out of the AT world - a body of knowledge that doesn't
include the best knowledge of yoga/meditation which I believe to be
the most advanced in the somatic world. I spend time and energy where
I hope to get best results.
> What you seem closed-minded about is the thought that there may be something
> called clarity, that there is truth, and that there may be strong arguments
> that don't require waiting for "science" to "prove."
Many AT teachers who SHOULD have learned this for themselves seem to
think there are no somatic experiences beyond AT that could teach them
something. As someone who sought such experiences I learned to not be
too certain about what I think I know.
Anything I believe can be changed by scientific proof or new
experience. Anything that seems clear may be truth or it may later be
shown to be a simplification of reality.
The AT community is insular - repeating the same 'truths' has led to a
culture based on unproven assumptions - it has this in common with
equivalent 'truths' in other areas of somatics They are 'proven' in
people's minds but not by science.
> I suggest that you back off from discussions when you find yourself just
> repeating the same thoughts over and over and over... and over.
What do you think of my claim to have had experiences that make me
think Grunwalds claims could be valid?
That's what it comes down to. How do we judge claims from another
persons experiences?
regards,
Keith.
On 1 May 2014 12:50, John Appleton <ohnj.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But nothing gives you pause because you are not
> trying to clarify anything here, but rather keep it uncertain.
He denies Grunwals proprioceptive sensitivity but knows little about
meditation which is what people use to acquire such sensitivity.
> Halvard is not hopelessly closed-minded, though I think you may be (but I am
> not certain, ha-ha). He has spent hours considering Grunwald's work and you
> have not. You are always too busy to investigate things (including my
> "thing"). But he hasn't been.
it from time to time.
It fascinates me. It's one of the few things left over from my AT days
that I still read.
I didn't investigate your PRI or anything else in the AT world because
it comes out of the AT world - a body of knowledge that doesn't
include the best knowledge of yoga/meditation which I believe to be
the most advanced in the somatic world. I spend time and energy where
I hope to get best results.
> What you seem closed-minded about is the thought that there may be something
> called clarity, that there is truth, and that there may be strong arguments
> that don't require waiting for "science" to "prove."
think there are no somatic experiences beyond AT that could teach them
something. As someone who sought such experiences I learned to not be
too certain about what I think I know.
Anything I believe can be changed by scientific proof or new
experience. Anything that seems clear may be truth or it may later be
shown to be a simplification of reality.
The AT community is insular - repeating the same 'truths' has led to a
culture based on unproven assumptions - it has this in common with
equivalent 'truths' in other areas of somatics They are 'proven' in
people's minds but not by science.
> I suggest that you back off from discussions when you find yourself just
> repeating the same thoughts over and over and over... and over.
think Grunwalds claims could be valid?
That's what it comes down to. How do we judge claims from another
persons experiences?
regards,
Keith.
Keith Bacon
May 2, 2014, 9:32:35 AM5/2/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi joseph,
On 2 May 2014 05:16, Joseph <jp3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But the AT community will have to learn these skills if it wishes to leave
> the shadows and achieve the prominence that FM envisioned.
Only some of them have to. And they should be supported by the rest.
> Like some others, I have little patience for claims and speculation that
> have no support from basic science.
But surely the AT is such a body of knowledge? You validate it by
your experience. In doing so you change some beliefs you had acquired
through instinct and culture.
Science has shown that propriocetive awareness comes quicker with eyes
closed and chanting and the breath stimulate the parasympathetic
nervous system. So if yoga has this possible backing from basic
science and AT doesn't should it's adherents dismiss AT becasue it
doesn't?
No, because none of us know how that will change.
Keith.
On 2 May 2014 05:16, Joseph <jp3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But the AT community will have to learn these skills if it wishes to leave
> the shadows and achieve the prominence that FM envisioned.
> Like some others, I have little patience for claims and speculation that
> have no support from basic science.
your experience. In doing so you change some beliefs you had acquired
through instinct and culture.
Science has shown that propriocetive awareness comes quicker with eyes
closed and chanting and the breath stimulate the parasympathetic
nervous system. So if yoga has this possible backing from basic
science and AT doesn't should it's adherents dismiss AT becasue it
doesn't?
No, because none of us know how that will change.
Keith.
John Coffin
May 2, 2014, 12:57:48 PM5/2/14
to keith...@gmail.com, AlexTech Mail List
Hello list:
Nonsense like this is why I've just about given up on this list:
Science has shown that propriocetive awareness comes quicker with eyesclosed and chanting and the breath stimulate the parasympatheticnervous system. So if yoga has this possible backing from basicscience and AT doesn't should it's adherents dismiss AT becasue itdoesn't?
What 'science?' TM's avalanche of bogus 'studies?' And what do closed eyes and chanting have to do with 'yoga?' And WHICH
'yoga?'
And even if that whole paragraph was a coherent statement of fact, why would anyone regard that as ANY support for Grunwald?
The most glaring problem with the 'alt-med' (quack) 'community' is that they cannot EVER accept that anything doesn't work. Every claim must be met with complete credulity, no matter how sharply it contradicts last-week's miracle.
The Alexander Technique is not another generic woo-woo scheme. Grasping the Technique involves an understanding of the fallibility of subjective impressions. The whole 'cure story' anecdote tabloid headline 'one weird trick' link culture is rooted in belief on the basis of unsupported impressions. It is an outrage that the Technique should ever have become equated with this cesspool.
John Coffin
PS: Grunwald's fans were claiming that he had no connection to Bates, even while his web page was invoking Bates in the FIRST LINE of text. The chapter below should make clear that the Bates 'system' is rooted in notions about vision that are just wrong.
PPS: The eyes are deeply involved in coordination, and can probably be included in our understanding of Primary Control. It would be worthwhile for this avenue to be explored. Subsuming the Alexander Technique under garbage like Bates is not even an attempt in this
direction.
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Halvard Heggdal
May 2, 2014, 2:08:18 PM5/2/14
to keith...@gmail.com, alex...@googlegroups.com
Hi Keith,
When I said you were wrong it was because I had the impression
that you said that the AT does not develop awareness of proprioception.
You are curious about the work of Peter Grunwald?
I can tell you: it is absolutely fascinating!
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
Cc: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 11:04:33 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
When I said you were wrong it was because I had the impression
that you said that the AT does not develop awareness of proprioception.
You are curious about the work of Peter Grunwald?
I can tell you: it is absolutely fascinating!
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
Cc: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 11:04:33 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AlexTech Mail List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AlexTech Mail List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Halvard Heggdal
May 2, 2014, 2:12:21 PM5/2/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, jp3...@gmail.com
Hi Joseph,
You are not off topic at all. Your concern is also my concern and the reason for me
writing this article(s).
Regards,
Halvard
You are not off topic at all. Your concern is also my concern and the reason for me
writing this article(s).
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Joseph <jp3...@gmail.com>
To: alex...@googlegroups.com
Cc: keith...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 21:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
--
Halvard Heggdal
May 2, 2014, 2:21:32 PM5/2/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, keith...@gmail.com
Hi Keith,
I just think that Peter Grunwald is not a superhuman, but a normal person,
like you and me.
I also believe that he is a very nice person, maybe even nicer than you and
me.
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 14:19:52 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
I just think that Peter Grunwald is not a superhuman, but a normal person,
like you and me.
I also believe that he is a very nice person, maybe even nicer than you and
me.
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 14:19:52 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
Keith Bacon
May 3, 2014, 5:03:37 AM5/3/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hello John,
On 2 May 2014 17:57, John Coffin <jbco...@prodigy.net> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception
See the section titled Training.
I acknowledge the line about closing eyes lacks a citation.
> .... what do closed eyes
and for more subtle reasons too.
> And WHICH 'yoga?'
You must have heard that people close their eyes during meditation?
For those like me we do it to increase proprioceptive awareness.
As far as I know nearly all types of yoga use these things.
> why would
> anyone regard that as ANY support for Grunwald?
I am merely trying to show that if a lot of Grunwalds knowledge comes
from experiences due to him having great proprioceptive sensitivity
developed using meditation then someone trained only in AT will not
understand those experiences.
> The most glaring problem with the 'alt-med' (quack) 'community' is
> that they cannot EVER accept that anything doesn't work. Every
> claim must be met with complete credulity
There are people rather like that but I am not one. For instance I
believed things I was taught in AT which I then rejected because I
sought experiences elsewhere that gave me new knowledge. I do not
reject AT just some claims made by some AT teachers - such as those
that know virtually nothing about yoga/meditation yet make confident
pronouncements on it.
My 'path' has been a constant struggle to separate what works from
what doesn't. Due to people's belief systems this was very hard to do.
> The Alexander Technique is not another generic woo-woo scheme.
Neither is yoga/meditation. That is why so many fans of it are working
to establish the science behind it. To prove which bis are woo woo and
which bits aren't.
> Grasping the
> Technique involves an understanding of the fallibility of subjective
> impressions.
That's why some of us yogis train to enhance our inner awareness. What
this extra sensing shows gives us information that contradicts or
clashes with systems of belief and sensation built without that
information. Faulty kinesthesia and Sensory Motor Amnesia being among
them. Another is that beliefs that once felt true are not true. And
that fixed prejudices come from a need for security and weaken as
muscle tension releases.
> It is an outrage that the Technique should ever have become
> equated with this cesspool.
I have found the worlds of yoga/meditation to be as wonderful as when
I found the world of AT. They have more varied belief systems and more
varied techniques but they have some very powerful ones and ones that
are accessible to poorer people as I once was.
> http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bates.html
An interesting site. It reveals that many scientists know nothing
about somatics.
Keith.
On 2 May 2014 17:57, John Coffin <jbco...@prodigy.net> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception
See the section titled Training.
I acknowledge the line about closing eyes lacks a citation.
> .... what do closed eyes
> and chanting have to do with 'yoga?'
They are used in yoga to stimulate the parasympathetic nervous system
and for more subtle reasons too.
> And WHICH 'yoga?'
You must have heard that people close their eyes during meditation?
For those like me we do it to increase proprioceptive awareness.
As far as I know nearly all types of yoga use these things.
> why would
> anyone regard that as ANY support for Grunwald?
from experiences due to him having great proprioceptive sensitivity
developed using meditation then someone trained only in AT will not
understand those experiences.
> The most glaring problem with the 'alt-med' (quack) 'community' is
> that they cannot EVER accept that anything doesn't work. Every
> claim must be met with complete credulity
believed things I was taught in AT which I then rejected because I
sought experiences elsewhere that gave me new knowledge. I do not
reject AT just some claims made by some AT teachers - such as those
that know virtually nothing about yoga/meditation yet make confident
pronouncements on it.
My 'path' has been a constant struggle to separate what works from
what doesn't. Due to people's belief systems this was very hard to do.
> The Alexander Technique is not another generic woo-woo scheme.
to establish the science behind it. To prove which bis are woo woo and
which bits aren't.
> Grasping the
> Technique involves an understanding of the fallibility of subjective
> impressions.
this extra sensing shows gives us information that contradicts or
clashes with systems of belief and sensation built without that
information. Faulty kinesthesia and Sensory Motor Amnesia being among
them. Another is that beliefs that once felt true are not true. And
that fixed prejudices come from a need for security and weaken as
muscle tension releases.
> It is an outrage that the Technique should ever have become
> equated with this cesspool.
I found the world of AT. They have more varied belief systems and more
varied techniques but they have some very powerful ones and ones that
are accessible to poorer people as I once was.
> http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bates.html
An interesting site. It reveals that many scientists know nothing
about somatics.
Keith.
Keith Bacon
May 3, 2014, 5:08:06 AM5/3/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi Halvard,
On 2 May 2014 19:08, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> When I said you were wrong it was because I had the impression
> that you said that the AT does not develop awareness of proprioception.
It doesn't seem to encourage direct cultivation of such awareness as
yoga/meditation does. It also does not use closing the eyes, non
habituated use of the breath and inner direction of focus to cultivate
it either. So I think AT people do not tend to reach the extreme
levels of awareness some yoga/meditation people do.
> You are curious about the work of Peter Grunwald?
> I can tell you: it is absolutely fascinating!
Indeed. It is either a master work or a tale of tragic delusion and I
find it hard to know which it is. It might be a mix. If I could I
would study under him to try to find out - and to not have to get
glasses which I may need soon.
Keith.
On 2 May 2014 19:08, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> When I said you were wrong it was because I had the impression
> that you said that the AT does not develop awareness of proprioception.
yoga/meditation does. It also does not use closing the eyes, non
habituated use of the breath and inner direction of focus to cultivate
it either. So I think AT people do not tend to reach the extreme
levels of awareness some yoga/meditation people do.
> You are curious about the work of Peter Grunwald?
> I can tell you: it is absolutely fascinating!
find it hard to know which it is. It might be a mix. If I could I
would study under him to try to find out - and to not have to get
glasses which I may need soon.
Keith.
Halvard Heggdal
May 3, 2014, 5:15:39 AM5/3/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, keith...@gmail.com
Hi Keith,
The whole point about proprioception (or sensory perception)
in the Alexander Technique is that it is developed in the process.
That other modalities have a more direct approach is completely
irrelevant!
We are, besides, off topic from this thread so I end discussion here.
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:08:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
The whole point about proprioception (or sensory perception)
in the Alexander Technique is that it is developed in the process.
That other modalities have a more direct approach is completely
irrelevant!
We are, besides, off topic from this thread so I end discussion here.
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:08:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
Halvard Heggdal
May 3, 2014, 5:22:25 AM5/3/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, keith...@gmail.com
Hi Keith,
Do you believe that the bones of the skull can move
because of brain activity taking place beneath those bones?
And if not, is Grunwald correct in his 'proprioception'
if he claims to feel those movements?
(In the book it is workshop participants who report feeling
this from outside, but I am pretty sure Grunwald could
have claimed to feel this in himself, taking the rest of
his theories into acccount).
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
Do you believe that the bones of the skull can move
because of brain activity taking place beneath those bones?
And if not, is Grunwald correct in his 'proprioception'
if he claims to feel those movements?
(In the book it is workshop participants who report feeling
this from outside, but I am pretty sure Grunwald could
have claimed to feel this in himself, taking the rest of
his theories into acccount).
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:03:37 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:03:37 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AlexTech Mail List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AlexTech Mail List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Keith Bacon
May 3, 2014, 5:23:52 AM5/3/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi Halvard
On 3 May 2014 10:15, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> That other modalities have a more direct approach is completely
> irrelevant!
What is relevant is that Grunwald used a non AT modality. And that has
given him a depth of proprioceptive awareness beyond what an AT only
trained person can likely not comprehend.
As so often when an AT only trained person makes derogatory comments
about such a thing they lack the training and experiences that might
make them change their view.
> We are, besides, off topic from this thread so I end discussion here.
It's only off topic if you deny such experiences and knowledge exist.
Or it's off topic if the subject was AT teachers getting together to
do down meditators :-)
Thanks,
Keith.
On 3 May 2014 10:15, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> That other modalities have a more direct approach is completely
> irrelevant!
given him a depth of proprioceptive awareness beyond what an AT only
trained person can likely not comprehend.
As so often when an AT only trained person makes derogatory comments
about such a thing they lack the training and experiences that might
make them change their view.
> We are, besides, off topic from this thread so I end discussion here.
Or it's off topic if the subject was AT teachers getting together to
do down meditators :-)
Thanks,
Keith.
Keith Bacon
May 3, 2014, 5:30:26 AM5/3/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi Halvard and everyone,
On 3 May 2014 10:22, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> Do you believe that the bones of the skull can move
> because of brain activity taking place beneath those bones?
>
> And if not, is Grunwald correct in his 'proprioception'
> if he claims to feel those movements?
I find it hard to believe but if he claims it I put it in the
'I will believe it when I feel it myself or when science proves it' department.
It is also possible he is feeling something but it is not exactly what
he thinks it is. This is a common problem where people have an
enhanced depth of proprioceptive awareness. How they describe what
they feel is shaped by their beliefs and often there is an element of
wishful thinking. It is very hard to tell what is valid.
K
On 3 May 2014 10:22, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> Do you believe that the bones of the skull can move
> because of brain activity taking place beneath those bones?
>
> And if not, is Grunwald correct in his 'proprioception'
> if he claims to feel those movements?
'I will believe it when I feel it myself or when science proves it' department.
It is also possible he is feeling something but it is not exactly what
he thinks it is. This is a common problem where people have an
enhanced depth of proprioceptive awareness. How they describe what
they feel is shaped by their beliefs and often there is an element of
wishful thinking. It is very hard to tell what is valid.
K
Halvard Heggdal
May 3, 2014, 5:43:10 AM5/3/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, keith...@gmail.com
Hi Keith,
Yes, it is hard to believe.
Have you checked what science says about the forces
needed to move to bones of the skull?
Regards
Yes, it is hard to believe.
Have you checked what science says about the forces
needed to move to bones of the skull?
Regards
Halvard
----- Original message -----
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:30:26 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:30:26 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AlexTech Mail List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to alextech+u...@googlegroups.com.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AlexTech Mail List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Lutz Golbs
May 3, 2014, 6:59:29 AM5/3/14
to Halvard Heggdal, AlexTech Mail List, Keith Bacon
Hello Halvard,
I read your blog post with interest, like most of this thread, and would like to offer some new perspectives for this conversation. First of all, I missed the Alexander perspective in your critique of Peter Grunwald's work. Instead, it rather shows the discrepancies between Peter's assumptions about the functionality of our visual system, and your favourite flavour of neuro-science.
Like Alexander, Peter Grunwald spends more time working with people than finding ways to scientifically prove potential merits to his method. His theory has certainly questionable ideas, yet the proof is in the pudding. I've spoken with people who have been with myopic Peter in this AT teacher training, and met him several times in the last few years.
When I got my first glasses at the age of ten, I was told being short-sighted cannot be cured, and will only get worse. My mind got primed with a self-fulfilling prophecy. While wearing glasses/contacts means only a minor impairment of life, it still means literally having a different view of life.
The idea that bad eyesight can be potentially cured still contradicts current scientific believes. Since Bates the approach has been mainly to prove that this cannot be done, without truly understanding perception at a very deep level. Most 'unconventional' methods for correcting eyesight refer to Bates, EyeBody is no exemption.
About 50 million bits of data arrive in every second as body sensation in our brain, while we can process about 50 bits of this data consciously. We can still access the totality of (body) information when we quieten the mind, perceiving with a heightened sensitivity details which takes lengthy descriptions to be verbalised.
I 'felt' the inside of my brain, and various parts of my visual system. Of course, you can claim this belongs to the 'faulty sensory appreciation' category. However, each cell of our body emits electrical energy, and we might be able to bring our awareness to any cell, or functional unit of cells such as organs. Focus on internal sensation/perception is a vital part of Vipassana meditation, and probably many other modalities.
So by simply observing parts of your brains you might become aware of the mechanical influences which pull it around. Eyes, optical nerve and brain form a continuum, which extends into the spine and out from the spine into all parts of our body. The extraocular muscles not only move the eyeball, they also affect the tension of the optical nerve. The shape of spine 'squeezes' or 'stretches' the spinal cord, which affects the push/pull on the brain stem. The flexibility required to allow a fixed length neuronal connection to stretch or squeeze is facilitated by the hydraulic system of the cerebrospinal fluids.
Can we acquire the nuanced awareness to describe mechanical distortions within our brain matter? I would say yes. Can we notice the release of muscles on our skull? Most certainly. Can the sutured bones of our skull move? I would interpret my hands on experience in this way.
Has science sufficiently integrated first person subjective experience in this methodology? Not really, especially if potential experiental claims don't fit into theoretical paradigms.
I wonder about your motivation to write this hit piece. Peter calls his method EyeBody, acknowledges his AT past, but most certainly understands this method as 'his' development. He emanated enough presence to run workshops with a large number of people, and his hand on work complements the ideas he promotes. His movements look well coordinated, and I also observed significant changes in people he worked with.
What's your beef?
Greets,
Lutz
Like Alexander, Peter Grunwald spends more time working with people than finding ways to scientifically prove potential merits to his method. His theory has certainly questionable ideas, yet the proof is in the pudding. I've spoken with people who have been with myopic Peter in this AT teacher training, and met him several times in the last few years.
When I got my first glasses at the age of ten, I was told being short-sighted cannot be cured, and will only get worse. My mind got primed with a self-fulfilling prophecy. While wearing glasses/contacts means only a minor impairment of life, it still means literally having a different view of life.
The idea that bad eyesight can be potentially cured still contradicts current scientific believes. Since Bates the approach has been mainly to prove that this cannot be done, without truly understanding perception at a very deep level. Most 'unconventional' methods for correcting eyesight refer to Bates, EyeBody is no exemption.
About 50 million bits of data arrive in every second as body sensation in our brain, while we can process about 50 bits of this data consciously. We can still access the totality of (body) information when we quieten the mind, perceiving with a heightened sensitivity details which takes lengthy descriptions to be verbalised.
I 'felt' the inside of my brain, and various parts of my visual system. Of course, you can claim this belongs to the 'faulty sensory appreciation' category. However, each cell of our body emits electrical energy, and we might be able to bring our awareness to any cell, or functional unit of cells such as organs. Focus on internal sensation/perception is a vital part of Vipassana meditation, and probably many other modalities.
So by simply observing parts of your brains you might become aware of the mechanical influences which pull it around. Eyes, optical nerve and brain form a continuum, which extends into the spine and out from the spine into all parts of our body. The extraocular muscles not only move the eyeball, they also affect the tension of the optical nerve. The shape of spine 'squeezes' or 'stretches' the spinal cord, which affects the push/pull on the brain stem. The flexibility required to allow a fixed length neuronal connection to stretch or squeeze is facilitated by the hydraulic system of the cerebrospinal fluids.
Can we acquire the nuanced awareness to describe mechanical distortions within our brain matter? I would say yes. Can we notice the release of muscles on our skull? Most certainly. Can the sutured bones of our skull move? I would interpret my hands on experience in this way.
Has science sufficiently integrated first person subjective experience in this methodology? Not really, especially if potential experiental claims don't fit into theoretical paradigms.
I wonder about your motivation to write this hit piece. Peter calls his method EyeBody, acknowledges his AT past, but most certainly understands this method as 'his' development. He emanated enough presence to run workshops with a large number of people, and his hand on work complements the ideas he promotes. His movements look well coordinated, and I also observed significant changes in people he worked with.
What's your beef?
Greets,
Lutz
John Appleton
May 3, 2014, 9:25:50 AM5/3/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, keith...@gmail.com
Hello List,
Maybe Occam’s razor
should be applied to the question of moving bones of the skull with the brains
inside. My approach to body change is to manipulate the sensations on its
surface, which in my estimation directly affects the shape of the immediate area
as well as the whole body.
Think of a balloon where part of its rubbery surface is imagined becoming
thicker and another part becoming thinner. This would change the shape of the
entire balloon, right? You may spend your time thinking about what is inside (bones,
muscles, brains, gizzards, etc.), where point-by-point sensation is arguably
somewhat or greatly less acute than on the surface. But I consider that an
approach that complicates. Sure, there can be a perception of bones or other
interior parts doing this or that, but I suspect that the perception is
probably a distortion of the gestalt from primarily body surface data.
To me, the total picture or
body image that comes from body surface perceptions and the tonal changes they
bring about represent the simplest explanation for perceived experiences… Occam’s
razor.
John Appleton
http://posturereleaseimagery.org/
P.S.- Keith, does that sound like a perspective coming from the Alexander Technique?
Form Fitness & Function (Tom & Monika)
May 3, 2014, 9:36:32 AM5/3/14
to Lutz Golbs, Halvard Heggdal, AlexTech Mail List, Keith Bacon
Almost 20 years ago I was fascinated and thrilled to learn in the NY Times about the discovery of a fibrous bit of connective tissue on a tiny postural muscle that connects the occiput to the atlas. This newly observed bit of connective tissue directly connected this muscle tissue to the dura mater. It seemed to me a huge development as regards our work in AT.
Apparently, dissections had historically been done in a particular manner that had obliterated this tiny bit of tissue. When researches looking into causes of jaw tension related to tension headaches did their head dissections in a different way, vertically from front to back, this tissue was "discovered".
The NY Times article didn't identify the muscle the connective tissue is attached to, but I guessed it was Rectus Capitus Minor and this was corroborated by looking for the original study online. It is referred to there as the "myodural bridge". The medical interpretation of this information resulting in a suggestion for a surgical separation procedure to ostensibly relieve tension headaches is very disturbing!
The NY Times article didn't identify the muscle the connective tissue is attached to, but I guessed it was Rectus Capitus Minor and this was corroborated by looking for the original study online. It is referred to there as the "myodural bridge". The medical interpretation of this information resulting in a suggestion for a surgical separation procedure to ostensibly relieve tension headaches is very disturbing!
Here is the NY Times archived article:
"Researchers say they have discovered a patch of tissue near the base of the skull that links a neck muscle to the outer lining of the brain, a link that they said might be related to some tension headaches." http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/19/us/fibrous-tissue-in-neck-is-tied-to-one-type-of-headache.html
"Researchers say they have discovered a patch of tissue near the base of the skull that links a neck muscle to the outer lining of the brain, a link that they said might be related to some tension headaches." http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/19/us/fibrous-tissue-in-neck-is-tied-to-one-type-of-headache.html
Here is a pdf of the original study with very clear illustrations:
http://hal.bim.msu.edu/ome2/cv/publications/hallgren-headache.pdf
http://hal.bim.msu.edu/ome2/cv/publications/hallgren-headache.pdf
Best,
Monika
Monika
Form Fitness & Function.com
117 Furman Avenue
Asheville NC 28801
828-225-3786
117 Furman Avenue
Asheville NC 28801
828-225-3786
"Move stronger, smarter and injury-free"
Bruce Marshall
May 3, 2014, 10:23:15 AM5/3/14
to lord...@gmail.com, Halvard Heggdal, AlexTech Mail List, Keith Bacon
I accept this offer by Lutz, yes cranial bones do move, and the eyes are connected to brain, and remediation of vision does occur.
Likewise I appreciate Halvard's essay, for asking some important questions, which I recognize as important, for we must be thorough in our approach.
Thoroughness in science requires that our constructs do not destroy us through abstractions that separate us from reality, a reality that is ultimately ourselves, which is in itself a manifestation of a higher intelligence that has so evolved and represents our 'supreme inheritence' may we say.
In terms of the Alexander Technique, Halvard makes an observation about Missy Vineyard's conceptions of this work in a footnote, where the same type of objections to Grunwald's constructs may be made about Alexander's ordering, which has various explanations within the Alexander world.
The term bandied about in terms of "woo-woo" can be made of the Alexander Technique, if one does so with attacks say on Bates methodology which has worked as much as we can say AT has worked. Both our in essence universally confined to backwater application, which may be their merit. Certainly Syntonic Optometry utilizes the Bates work as much as they utilize color to influence the system to work better.
Alexander Technique restores appropriate tone to the system, but even as Keith points out so does, yoga, but I think that the Alexander Technique represents a very evolved yogic discipline of superior conception and potential, without the advantages or dangers of Hatha yoga stretching.
So what is that primary control anyways?
Bruce Marshall
From: Lutz Golbs <lord...@gmail.com>
To: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>
Cc: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>; Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 6:59 AM
Likewise I appreciate Halvard's essay, for asking some important questions, which I recognize as important, for we must be thorough in our approach.
Thoroughness in science requires that our constructs do not destroy us through abstractions that separate us from reality, a reality that is ultimately ourselves, which is in itself a manifestation of a higher intelligence that has so evolved and represents our 'supreme inheritence' may we say.
In terms of the Alexander Technique, Halvard makes an observation about Missy Vineyard's conceptions of this work in a footnote, where the same type of objections to Grunwald's constructs may be made about Alexander's ordering, which has various explanations within the Alexander world.
The term bandied about in terms of "woo-woo" can be made of the Alexander Technique, if one does so with attacks say on Bates methodology which has worked as much as we can say AT has worked. Both our in essence universally confined to backwater application, which may be their merit. Certainly Syntonic Optometry utilizes the Bates work as much as they utilize color to influence the system to work better.
Alexander Technique restores appropriate tone to the system, but even as Keith points out so does, yoga, but I think that the Alexander Technique represents a very evolved yogic discipline of superior conception and potential, without the advantages or dangers of Hatha yoga stretching.
So what is that primary control anyways?
Bruce Marshall
From: Lutz Golbs <lord...@gmail.com>
To: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>
Cc: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>; Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 6:59 AM
Bruce Marshall
May 3, 2014, 10:29:17 AM5/3/14
to formfitne...@gmail.com, AlexTech Mail List
There is a cranial method by an Irish chiropractor, Robert Boyd, that understood this link and uses a particular form of trapezius stretch to effect this link. A powerful method which apparently serves as a primer to cranial sacral pulse which is initially activated by birth through the birth canal where the compression of the head serves as the contraction phase to set the pulse in motion after birth. A powerful method!
Bruce Marshall
From: Form Fitness & Function (Tom & Monika) <formfitne...@gmail.com>
To: Lutz Golbs <lord...@gmail.com>
Cc: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>; AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>; Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:36 AM
Bruce Marshall
From: Form Fitness & Function (Tom & Monika) <formfitne...@gmail.com>
To: Lutz Golbs <lord...@gmail.com>
Cc: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>; AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>; Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:36 AM
Halvard Heggdal
May 3, 2014, 11:20:52 AM5/3/14
to lord...@gmail.com, alex...@googlegroups.com
Hello Lutz,
Thanks for your comment.
My 'beef' is pseudoscience. The AT is about getting rid of the things that we don't need. Pseudoscience is for the large part obsolete ideas. We don't need them because there are other explanations that are much more likely to be true, or, as often is the case, they are just wrong. There is much of pseudoscience lurking around in the AT world. Eyebody is only the tip of the iceberg, but being visible I thought it was a good place to start.
Eyebody principles.
Writing the first part of the article I refrained from commenting too much, believing that the improbability of the ideas would be self evident. In almost every sentence there are questions to ask oneself. For instance: If it is possible for skull bones to move because of neural activity, how can this happen in the space of seconds? Is it a miraculous spontaneous growth of brain tissue? It is probably not because of spinal fluid or blood flow as the pressure needed would have caused brain damage. So how can it happen?
These are the questions we should discuss. Instead I'm served another load of improbable pseudoscience to try to save Grunwald's ideas. You can't save one improbability by presenting another.
Eyebody practice.
I have so far not written anything about Grunwalds teaching or the effects of the method. Apparently he can help a lot of people. I think (as I will write about in the third part of the article) that the process of 'panoramic vision' and 'conscious depth perception' can have a positive effect. The reaons for this are not the same as Grunwald claims of course. His method works, not because he has found a working mechanism, but despite of it.
My point it that Grunwald can trash his pseudoscientific neurobiology and his bogus claims of health effect, he doesn't need them, and still help people.
Vision is a very complex process (or rather several processes). The reason for perceived improvement of sight can be numerous. But, there are some things that can be measured. Acuity is one such thing. Compared to a lot of other things it is relatively easy to test.
The Bates method has been around for a hundred years without anyone coughing up any solid evidence that it improves sight. The likelyhood that the Bates method, or the Eyebody method, improves acuity is extremely low.
And by the way you are right, there isn't much Alexander Technique perspective in my blogpost.
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Lutz Golbs <lord...@gmail.com>
To: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>
Halvard Heggdal
May 3, 2014, 12:48:17 PM5/3/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, br...@yahoo.com
Hi Bruce,
A 'powerful method'? Do you have any documentation for this, or is
it just hearsay?
The cranial-sacral pulse has never been verified. There have been tests.
In one test they had two cranio-sacral therapists touch the same person.
Both of the therapists had a foot switch so they could give signal for when
they could feel a pulse. There was no coherence between what the two
teachers felt.
I'm sorry I haven't got the reference at hand.
Peter Grunwald is heavily influenced by cranio-sacral therapy. That's where
his weird notion of neurobiology comes from, including the moving bones
of the skull. If the cranio-sacral therapists were right, we would all been
dead by know.
A 'powerful method'? Do you have any documentation for this, or is
it just hearsay?
The cranial-sacral pulse has never been verified. There have been tests.
In one test they had two cranio-sacral therapists touch the same person.
Both of the therapists had a foot switch so they could give signal for when
they could feel a pulse. There was no coherence between what the two
teachers felt.
I'm sorry I haven't got the reference at hand.
Peter Grunwald is heavily influenced by cranio-sacral therapy. That's where
his weird notion of neurobiology comes from, including the moving bones
of the skull. If the cranio-sacral therapists were right, we would all been
dead by know.
Bruce Marshall
May 3, 2014, 8:55:33 PM5/3/14
to Halvard Heggdal, alex...@googlegroups.com
Dear Halvard,
There is not much I can say at this point to all that you have said,
but I do have a response, but that can come later perhaps, but first
calm down.
Or just pause and think about
what you have just said,
then answer your own question by doing some work
a scientific experiment where you get to use your
experiential imagination
by exploring how other people may think
and find our what their strategy is
This suggestion is in the tradition of the Alexander Technique
which certainly takes outside our own
construct of the world
into a new world all together
There is a very powerful science dictatorship that runs this world
or thinks the run it as they push the world into World War III
such that puff goes this internet and the vital infrastructure of the world
so I do not take kindly to attacks upon methods
That have had incredible healings on very brain injured people, etc...
by those who are allowing the West to be run by bureaucracies that are
controlled by the medical cartels and phamecutical industries.
Well well well I am pretty pissed off, go ahead ask you questions
or here is an answer
If you think people are block heads well then that is what you will find.
As Robert Anton Wilson repeatedly said, "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." So
why do I have the idea that you have already made up your mind?
Enjoy the spring!
Bruce Marshall
From: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>
To: alex...@googlegroups.com; br...@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: cranial Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
There is not much I can say at this point to all that you have said,
but I do have a response, but that can come later perhaps, but first
calm down.
Or just pause and think about
what you have just said,
then answer your own question by doing some work
a scientific experiment where you get to use your
experiential imagination
by exploring how other people may think
and find our what their strategy is
This suggestion is in the tradition of the Alexander Technique
which certainly takes outside our own
construct of the world
into a new world all together
There is a very powerful science dictatorship that runs this world
or thinks the run it as they push the world into World War III
such that puff goes this internet and the vital infrastructure of the world
so I do not take kindly to attacks upon methods
That have had incredible healings on very brain injured people, etc...
by those who are allowing the West to be run by bureaucracies that are
controlled by the medical cartels and phamecutical industries.
Well well well I am pretty pissed off, go ahead ask you questions
or here is an answer
If you think people are block heads well then that is what you will find.
As Robert Anton Wilson repeatedly said, "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." So
why do I have the idea that you have already made up your mind?
Enjoy the spring!
Bruce Marshall
From: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>
To: alex...@googlegroups.com; br...@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: cranial Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
Hi Bruce,
A 'powerful method'? Do you have any documentation for this, or is
it just hearsay?
The cranial-sacral pulse has never been verified. There have been tests.
In one test they had two cranio-sacral therapists touch the same person.
Both of the therapists had a foot switch so they could give signal for when
they could feel a pulse. There was no coherence between what the two
teachers felt.
I'm sorry I haven't got the reference at hand.
Peter Grunwald is heavily influenced by cranio-sacral therapy. That's where
his weird notion of neurobiology comes from, including the moving bones
of the skull. If the cranio-sacral therapists were right, we would all been
dead by know.
A 'powerful method'? Do you have any documentation for this, or is
it just hearsay?
The cranial-sacral pulse has never been verified. There have been tests.
In one test they had two cranio-sacral therapists touch the same person.
Both of the therapists had a foot switch so they could give signal for when
they could feel a pulse. There was no coherence between what the two
teachers felt.
I'm sorry I haven't got the reference at hand.
Peter Grunwald is heavily influenced by cranio-sacral therapy. That's where
his weird notion of neurobiology comes from, including the moving bones
of the skull. If the cranio-sacral therapists were right, we would all been
dead by know.
Regards,
Halvard
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: "'Bruce Marshall' via AlexTech Mail List" <alex...@googlegroups.com>
To: "formfitne...@gmail.com" <formfitne...@gmail.com>, AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 07:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
John Appleton
May 3, 2014, 10:05:00 PM5/3/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, Halvard Heggdal, Bruce Marshall
Bruce,
Yes you do sound pissed off. And pissed / drunk. Clear your thoughts and come back with something cogent for Halvard and us.
John
John
Lutz Golbs
May 4, 2014, 1:37:50 AM5/4/14
to Halvard Heggdal, AlexTech Mail List
Hello Halvard,
I'm glad that we agree about AT helping to get of the things we don't need. While the study of consciousness helped to question some of the existing paradigms about human nature, 'psychophysical unity' still contradicts most common scientific approaches to investigate nature.
How could skull bones move? Our brain 'swims' in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which itself creates some sort of hydraulic system consisting of the skull cavity, ventricles and spinal canal. If I'm not wrong, that's the main system treated by craniosacral therapists. The CSF forms a continuos body of liquid, adapting in all of the involved cavities the pressure changes induced by movement, gravity, overall posture, blood circulation.
The second hydrostatic system affecting the space available in the skull is the circulatory systems. While there is an average amount of blood circulating through our brain, the exact amount differs in any given situation, and thus the amount of mechanical pressure exerted by it.
Monika mentioned the fascial connection to the dura mater from the suboccipital muscles, another mechanical connection to affect the shape and volume inside our skull. The outer layer of muscles on the skull can (and does actually does so noticeably) squeeze the skull bones together, similar to a too tight swim cap.
While there is no known direct approach to influence blood pressure and flow, or to affect the CSF, indirect approaches seem to work in this area. It might be possible that having an optimal level of muscular tension, aligned CSF and optimal blood flow to produce a synergistic effect, activating the mysterious Primary Control.
I think one of most important things I got rid of by applying AT was blind trust in experts. What I learned about myself and the functionality of my bodily vessel allows me to investigate some claims about our nature in my own, trusted laboratory. The EyeBody method didn't improve my eyesight, but the work nevertheless added to my experience with 'psycho-physical reeducation' methods. Like most of those methods, they require patience and persistence in applying the principles on a regular basis.
Peter's approach encourages to explore the world of perception, how we create (the illusion of) reality. As mentioned several times, science avoid subjective experience largely, which makes scientific scrutiny of somatic/holistic modalities at least difficult. The only reputation that potentially can be tainted is that of the EyeBody method. One needs to apply the guilt by association fallacy to connect his 'pseudo-science' at AT.
Greets,
Lutz
How could skull bones move? Our brain 'swims' in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which itself creates some sort of hydraulic system consisting of the skull cavity, ventricles and spinal canal. If I'm not wrong, that's the main system treated by craniosacral therapists. The CSF forms a continuos body of liquid, adapting in all of the involved cavities the pressure changes induced by movement, gravity, overall posture, blood circulation.
The second hydrostatic system affecting the space available in the skull is the circulatory systems. While there is an average amount of blood circulating through our brain, the exact amount differs in any given situation, and thus the amount of mechanical pressure exerted by it.
Monika mentioned the fascial connection to the dura mater from the suboccipital muscles, another mechanical connection to affect the shape and volume inside our skull. The outer layer of muscles on the skull can (and does actually does so noticeably) squeeze the skull bones together, similar to a too tight swim cap.
While there is no known direct approach to influence blood pressure and flow, or to affect the CSF, indirect approaches seem to work in this area. It might be possible that having an optimal level of muscular tension, aligned CSF and optimal blood flow to produce a synergistic effect, activating the mysterious Primary Control.
I think one of most important things I got rid of by applying AT was blind trust in experts. What I learned about myself and the functionality of my bodily vessel allows me to investigate some claims about our nature in my own, trusted laboratory. The EyeBody method didn't improve my eyesight, but the work nevertheless added to my experience with 'psycho-physical reeducation' methods. Like most of those methods, they require patience and persistence in applying the principles on a regular basis.
Peter's approach encourages to explore the world of perception, how we create (the illusion of) reality. As mentioned several times, science avoid subjective experience largely, which makes scientific scrutiny of somatic/holistic modalities at least difficult. The only reputation that potentially can be tainted is that of the EyeBody method. One needs to apply the guilt by association fallacy to connect his 'pseudo-science' at AT.
Greets,
Lutz
Bruce Marshall
May 4, 2014, 10:16:16 AM5/4/14
to ohnj.p...@gmail.com, alex...@googlegroups.com, Halvard Heggdal
I appreciate your concern John and can understand that I undermined my suggestion,
which positively is of the nature of a thought experiment, you know about that, such that
another way of investigation can be followed.
I do have problem with answering questions that are followed by a comment, a comment which
sends the signal that one's mind is made up already on a subject.
Sometimes hardened positions require a different perspective in order to answer a question.
Yes the skull is fairly ridged in its adult form such that it can only take only so much intercranial pressure
from a blow to the head, but this does not obviate the fact that there is movement of the bones
of the skull, where we can make positive influence on people's health by addressing this system.
Bruce Marshall
From: John Appleton <ohnj.p...@gmail.com>
To: alex...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>; Bruce Marshall <br...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 10:05 PM
which positively is of the nature of a thought experiment, you know about that, such that
another way of investigation can be followed.
I do have problem with answering questions that are followed by a comment, a comment which
sends the signal that one's mind is made up already on a subject.
Sometimes hardened positions require a different perspective in order to answer a question.
Yes the skull is fairly ridged in its adult form such that it can only take only so much intercranial pressure
from a blow to the head, but this does not obviate the fact that there is movement of the bones
of the skull, where we can make positive influence on people's health by addressing this system.
Bruce Marshall
From: John Appleton <ohnj.p...@gmail.com>
To: alex...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no>; Bruce Marshall <br...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2014 10:05 PM
Bruce,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+u...@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ group/alextech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alextech+u...@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to alex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ group/alextech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
Halvard Heggdal
May 4, 2014, 2:31:27 PM5/4/14
to lord...@gmail.com, alex...@googlegroups.com
Hello Lutz,
As you can testify there are positive effects of studying the Eyebody Method.
I will be discussing this in the next part of the article. My main aim has been
to criticise the ideas of the method, not the practical teaching of it.
In practice there can be a positive effect, even though the explanatory model
behind it is completely wrong.
This is also the case with Cranio-sacral therapy.
I've been to a one day workshop in cranio-sacral therapy, so I an boast to know
something about it.
In Cranio-sacral therapy the practitioner touches the clients head (for instance) very
lighty to feel the pulsation of the cerebrospinal fluid. As I mentioned to Bruce, there
have been tests where practitioners of the method failed to coherently indicate the
rythm they claim to feel.
But, there is another bigger problem.
If the bones of the skull is moving, as the Cranio-sacral practitioners claim, then
this must be due to increased intra-cranial pressure. But increased intra-cranial pressure
is very dangerous since it can lead to brain damage. So the increase of pressure
must by necessity be very very low. But then the bones of the skull must be
correspondingly very very loose, for them to move.
So, if the Cranio-sacral people are correct, I risk, next time I bang my head against
the open cupboard door, that my head will smash like a pumpkin.
Since I have banged my head several times over the years, without experiencing
the smashed-pumpkin effect, I am very much inclined to believe that the theory
behind Cranio-sacral therapy is wrong. At least on that point.
This does not mean, however, that Cranio-sacral therapy is without effect. It is
extremely relaxing. The practitioners are listening with their hands for this rythm
that don't exist, and in that process they aquire very open and non-doing hands.
But I don't think there is reason to believe that there are other effects than profound
relaxation, which of course can be very useful when that's what you need. There
are, as yet, no documentation for heatlth effects from the Cranio-sacral method.
As you can testify there are positive effects of studying the Eyebody Method.
I will be discussing this in the next part of the article. My main aim has been
to criticise the ideas of the method, not the practical teaching of it.
In practice there can be a positive effect, even though the explanatory model
behind it is completely wrong.
This is also the case with Cranio-sacral therapy.
I've been to a one day workshop in cranio-sacral therapy, so I an boast to know
something about it.
In Cranio-sacral therapy the practitioner touches the clients head (for instance) very
lighty to feel the pulsation of the cerebrospinal fluid. As I mentioned to Bruce, there
have been tests where practitioners of the method failed to coherently indicate the
rythm they claim to feel.
But, there is another bigger problem.
If the bones of the skull is moving, as the Cranio-sacral practitioners claim, then
this must be due to increased intra-cranial pressure. But increased intra-cranial pressure
is very dangerous since it can lead to brain damage. So the increase of pressure
must by necessity be very very low. But then the bones of the skull must be
correspondingly very very loose, for them to move.
So, if the Cranio-sacral people are correct, I risk, next time I bang my head against
the open cupboard door, that my head will smash like a pumpkin.
Since I have banged my head several times over the years, without experiencing
the smashed-pumpkin effect, I am very much inclined to believe that the theory
behind Cranio-sacral therapy is wrong. At least on that point.
This does not mean, however, that Cranio-sacral therapy is without effect. It is
extremely relaxing. The practitioners are listening with their hands for this rythm
that don't exist, and in that process they aquire very open and non-doing hands.
But I don't think there is reason to believe that there are other effects than profound
relaxation, which of course can be very useful when that's what you need. There
are, as yet, no documentation for heatlth effects from the Cranio-sacral method.
Halvard Heggdal
May 4, 2014, 3:26:58 PM5/4/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, br...@yahoo.com
Hello Bruce,
Sorry if I gave the impression of being rude.
It was not my intention and could be due
to English being a second language.
It is very common in other discussions I take
part in to ask for references to statements that
are being made. I think it is a reasonable request.
Sorry if I gave the impression of being rude.
It was not my intention and could be due
to English being a second language.
It is very common in other discussions I take
part in to ask for references to statements that
are being made. I think it is a reasonable request.
John Appleton
May 4, 2014, 4:11:58 PM5/4/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, lord...@gmail.com
Hello Halvard,
If someone came to me saying she has steel plates in her head and a steel rod along side her spine, I would still work with her to experience change in her body, even in those areas. We are a whole body and I believe that a sense of ease and/or tone can be created even in a place that mechanically cannot be moved.
I have a perspective (in a previous posting on this thread that I have copied and pasted below) that seems to have not made a dent here. But I wish to repeat myself a bit here because of what you said addressing Lutz, which was "But, there is another bigger problem.
If the bones of the skull is moving, as the Cranio-sacral practitioners claim, then this must be due to increased intra-cranial pressure." No ! "Extra-"cranial pressure and release could do the job. And they could produce the sensation of bones moving even if they don't ! What about tonal qualities sensed and produced on the body surface and near-surface. People have "splitting" headaches and not from anything happening intra-cranially, I suspect. The body surface and near surface seems totally ignored in its ability to produce sensations of change (shrinking/expanding, light/heavy, etc. as well as possible real changes of a small but ultimately important nature. If someone came to me saying she has steel plates in her head and a steel rod along side her spine, I would still work with her to experience change in her body, even in those areas. We are a whole body and I believe that a sense of ease and/or tone can be created even in a place that mechanically cannot be moved.
Regards,
John
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello List,
Maybe Occam’s razor should be applied to the question of moving bones of the skull with the brains inside. My approach to body change is to manipulate the sensations on its surface, which in my estimation directly affects the shape of the immediate area as well as the whole body.
Think of a balloon where part of its rubbery surface is imagined becoming thicker and another part becoming thinner. This would change the shape of the entire balloon, right? You may spend your time thinking about what is inside (bones, muscles, brains, gizzards, etc.), where point-by-point sensation is arguably somewhat or greatly less acute than on the surface. But I consider that an approach that complicates. Sure, there can be a perception of bones or other interior parts doing this or that, but I suspect that the perception is probably a distortion of the gestalt from primarily body surface data.
To me, the total picture or body image that comes from body surface perceptions and the tonal changes they bring about represent the simplest explanation for perceived experiences… Occam’s razor.
John Appleton
http://posturereleaseimagery.org/
P.S.- Keith, does that sound like a perspective coming from the Alexander Technique?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Marshall
May 5, 2014, 11:41:02 AM5/5/14
to hal...@alexanderinfo.no, alex...@googlegroups.com
Dear Halvard,
Thank you, I appreciate your note, and the opportunity to
reciprocate the good gesture, where had I toned down, or rather done
some more inhibiting myself, in my response, than risk creating the very
alienating atmosphere that I see as a problem...well then...
Well I must say that I have been pleasantly surprised to see that you were
already anticipating the open minded approach to examination that I tried
to suggest. So congratulation on utilizing such an approach.
I think you communicate quite well, rather my English has always been
suspect, but a fun challenge, like the Alexander Technique.
I might note that I apprenticed in the Alexander Technique with Kitty Weilopolska
who originally came up with the "Eye Orders" the subject of which is part of this
conversation.
Regards,
Bruce Marshall
Thank you, I appreciate your note, and the opportunity to
reciprocate the good gesture, where had I toned down, or rather done
some more inhibiting myself, in my response, than risk creating the very
alienating atmosphere that I see as a problem...well then...
Well I must say that I have been pleasantly surprised to see that you were
already anticipating the open minded approach to examination that I tried
to suggest. So congratulation on utilizing such an approach.
I think you communicate quite well, rather my English has always been
suspect, but a fun challenge, like the Alexander Technique.
I might note that I apprenticed in the Alexander Technique with Kitty Weilopolska
who originally came up with the "Eye Orders" the subject of which is part of this
conversation.
Regards,
Bruce Marshall
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2014 3:26 PM
Halvard Heggdal
May 5, 2014, 12:49:27 PM5/5/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, br...@yahoo.com
Hello Bruce,
I would be very interested in hearing more about the eye directions
of Kitty Wielopolska. How do they differ from the directions that
Peter Grunwald uses in his Eyebody Method?
I would be very interested in hearing more about the eye directions
of Kitty Wielopolska. How do they differ from the directions that
Peter Grunwald uses in his Eyebody Method?
Keith Bacon
May 6, 2014, 9:42:21 AM5/6/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi Halvard
On 3 May 2014 10:43, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> Have you checked what science says about the forces
> needed to move to bones of the skull?
I googled and found this on a yoga website
"... the skull contains 26 bones. When we wear a turban we are
massaging and relaxing the skull, allowing the bones in our cranium to
remain free to move instead of hardening in place. The bones in our
cranium are meant to move; as we grow up they become locked in place
and the pineal gland begins to calcify"
I don't know if science has studied Peter Grunwald, his pupils or the
yoga folks that share his belief. So like in so many areas if Grunwald
has 'discovered' something new (that some yogis already knew) then one
day mainstream science may catch up with them.
If they are all deluded science may one day prove it so.
Alexander made claims that were ridiculed just as you ridicule
Greenwald. But you have had experiences which showed you Alexander was
right. You know things which science has yet to discover.
Maybe this is a similar situation?
Keith.
On 3 May 2014 10:43, Halvard Heggdal <hal...@alexanderinfo.no> wrote:
> Have you checked what science says about the forces
> needed to move to bones of the skull?
"... the skull contains 26 bones. When we wear a turban we are
massaging and relaxing the skull, allowing the bones in our cranium to
remain free to move instead of hardening in place. The bones in our
cranium are meant to move; as we grow up they become locked in place
and the pineal gland begins to calcify"
I don't know if science has studied Peter Grunwald, his pupils or the
yoga folks that share his belief. So like in so many areas if Grunwald
has 'discovered' something new (that some yogis already knew) then one
day mainstream science may catch up with them.
If they are all deluded science may one day prove it so.
Alexander made claims that were ridiculed just as you ridicule
Greenwald. But you have had experiences which showed you Alexander was
right. You know things which science has yet to discover.
Maybe this is a similar situation?
Keith.
Keith Bacon
May 6, 2014, 9:59:56 AM5/6/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi monika
On 3 May 2014 14:36, Form Fitness & Function (Tom & Monika)
> "Researchers say they have discovered a patch of tissue near the base of the
> skull that links a neck muscle to the outer lining of the brain, a link that
> they said might be related to some tension headaches."
Is this the muscle that the Cranial Sacrotherapy people say pumps the
Cerebro-spinal fluid?
Halvard says there is no such thing. I assume the fluid must circulate
and replenish - is there another mechanism?
The experiment where 2 therapists didn't coincide in identifying the
pulse is interesting - however it may be proving that many therapists
are not as good as they think they are, which I find easy to believe.
It's humbling for western science to keep discovering these little
things. It is also heartening how quickly it latchers onto some
alternative things and studies them.
Keith.
On 3 May 2014 14:36, Form Fitness & Function (Tom & Monika)
> "Researchers say they have discovered a patch of tissue near the base of the
> skull that links a neck muscle to the outer lining of the brain, a link that
> they said might be related to some tension headaches."
Cerebro-spinal fluid?
Halvard says there is no such thing. I assume the fluid must circulate
and replenish - is there another mechanism?
The experiment where 2 therapists didn't coincide in identifying the
pulse is interesting - however it may be proving that many therapists
are not as good as they think they are, which I find easy to believe.
It's humbling for western science to keep discovering these little
things. It is also heartening how quickly it latchers onto some
alternative things and studies them.
Keith.
Keith Bacon
May 6, 2014, 10:06:41 AM5/6/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi Bruce,
On 3 May 2014 15:23, Bruce Marshall <br...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Likewise I appreciate Halvard's essay, for asking some important questions,
> which I recognize as important, for we must be thorough in our approach.
I agree with asking the questions and debating it.
I dont agree with appeals to science and logic that are flawed.
> The term bandied about in terms of "woo-woo" can be made of the Alexander
> Technique,
Indeed. Until science catches up it can be called woo-woo by those who
have not had an experience of change via it.
> Alexander Technique restores appropriate tone to the system, but even as
> Keith points out so does, yoga, but I think that the Alexander Technique
> represents a very evolved yogic discipline of superior conception and
> potential, without the advantages or dangers of Hatha yoga stretching.
Whereas I think the specialist knowledge of yoga/meditation (not the
experience of someone that does a weekly hatha class) is the most
profound somatic knowledge.
I think it - I don't know it. But for someone to tell me this is not
so I would want them to know a lot about yoga/meditation - from direct
experience.
regards,
Keith.
On 3 May 2014 15:23, Bruce Marshall <br...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Likewise I appreciate Halvard's essay, for asking some important questions,
> which I recognize as important, for we must be thorough in our approach.
I dont agree with appeals to science and logic that are flawed.
> The term bandied about in terms of "woo-woo" can be made of the Alexander
> Technique,
have not had an experience of change via it.
> Alexander Technique restores appropriate tone to the system, but even as
> Keith points out so does, yoga, but I think that the Alexander Technique
> represents a very evolved yogic discipline of superior conception and
> potential, without the advantages or dangers of Hatha yoga stretching.
experience of someone that does a weekly hatha class) is the most
profound somatic knowledge.
I think it - I don't know it. But for someone to tell me this is not
so I would want them to know a lot about yoga/meditation - from direct
experience.
regards,
Keith.
Halvard Heggdal
May 6, 2014, 10:40:52 AM5/6/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, keith...@gmail.com
Hi Keith,
I read a book about the Alexander Technique even
before having a single lesson, and became convinced
it could work.
Alexander's ideas make sens. Grunwald's ideas don't.
Neither do the principles of Cranio-sacral therapy.
In this little article there are some points of information
about the problems with some of the the principles behind
Cranio-sacral therapy:
http://saveyourself.ca/articles/craniosacral-therapy.php
Check note number 2 to read about an experiment on force needed
to move cranial bones. You can read the abstract of the trial here:
http://saveyourself.ca/bibliography.php?dow
You might also be interested in reading my blogpost from two years
ago on Cranio-sacral therapy. It is in Norwegian, but googletranslate
will do a decent job on most of it.
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 14:42:21 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
I read a book about the Alexander Technique even
before having a single lesson, and became convinced
it could work.
Alexander's ideas make sens. Grunwald's ideas don't.
Neither do the principles of Cranio-sacral therapy.
In this little article there are some points of information
about the problems with some of the the principles behind
Cranio-sacral therapy:
http://saveyourself.ca/articles/craniosacral-therapy.php
Check note number 2 to read about an experiment on force needed
to move cranial bones. You can read the abstract of the trial here:
http://saveyourself.ca/bibliography.php?dow
You might also be interested in reading my blogpost from two years
ago on Cranio-sacral therapy. It is in Norwegian, but googletranslate
will do a decent job on most of it.
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: Keith Bacon <keith...@gmail.com>
To: AlexTech Mail List <alex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 14:42:21 +0100
Subject: Re: [alextech-list] The Eyebody Method part 1
Keith Bacon
May 6, 2014, 12:53:52 PM5/6/14
to John Appleton, AlexTech Mail List
Hi John,
On 3 May 2014 14:25, John Appleton <ohnj.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me, the total picture or body image that comes from body surface
> perceptions and the tonal changes they bring about represent the simplest
> explanation for perceived experiences… Occam’s razor.
An Occam's razor argument could be.
"AT fixed my back ache by using Inhhibiton and Direction."
"Those things don't exist therefore it was the placebo effect."
What if other people perceive experiences you don't?
regards,
Keith
On 3 May 2014 14:25, John Appleton <ohnj.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me, the total picture or body image that comes from body surface
> perceptions and the tonal changes they bring about represent the simplest
> explanation for perceived experiences… Occam’s razor.
"AT fixed my back ache by using Inhhibiton and Direction."
"Those things don't exist therefore it was the placebo effect."
What if other people perceive experiences you don't?
regards,
Keith
Keith Bacon
May 6, 2014, 1:05:02 PM5/6/14
to AlexTech Mail List
> Someone asked off list how a yoga person would know that the bones
> of their skull are moving.
If it is true it would be because their bones started moving when they
reached a certain stage of yogic change. Or perhaps they never stopped
moving as they grew up.
The head is covered in a layer of muscle. If the bones beneath it
moved relative to each other that muscle would stretch and/or contract
and they would feel it proprioceptively.
K
> of their skull are moving.
If it is true it would be because their bones started moving when they
reached a certain stage of yogic change. Or perhaps they never stopped
moving as they grew up.
The head is covered in a layer of muscle. If the bones beneath it
moved relative to each other that muscle would stretch and/or contract
and they would feel it proprioceptively.
K
Keith Bacon
May 7, 2014, 1:37:36 PM5/7/14
to AlexTech Mail List
Hi all,
Some one wrote to me off list saying that yoga people don't do experiments.
Many yoga people subscribe to the views of the Dala Lama that you
should accept what you validate by direct experience.
Also that if your experience or belief contradicts science you should
believe the science.
But we are possibly dealing here with fringe science or things science
hasn't started studying.
One thing all somatic systems have in common is that you are
experimenting on yourself. You do your technique or practice and learn
from how you change.
Yogic knowledge comes from the type of empirical study that Alexander
engaged in, except it is believed by most of us that it is not the
work of one person but of many people refined over many years, because
of it's breadth, depth and sophistication.
It is possible these people experienced it directly themselves. One
problem in yoga is that some people really have experienced what they
talk about and others have learned it by wrote or have fanciful
notions. Without the relevant experiences it is hard to judge which is
which.
A senior yogi told me that Yogi Bhajan asked some yogis to test the
teaching that venus lock is done with hands the opposite way round for
men and women. He asked teachers with large classes to get one side of
the room to do it the wrong way round and see if they could observe
any difference.
It is this incessant questioning and reevaluation of what they are
taught that has made yoga so successful. I believe there is more
scientific testing of yoga claims than AT claims, it remains a
surprise to me that this seemingly flaky eastern thing has embraced
western science more readily than AT has.
Keith.
Some one wrote to me off list saying that yoga people don't do experiments.
Many yoga people subscribe to the views of the Dala Lama that you
should accept what you validate by direct experience.
Also that if your experience or belief contradicts science you should
believe the science.
But we are possibly dealing here with fringe science or things science
hasn't started studying.
One thing all somatic systems have in common is that you are
experimenting on yourself. You do your technique or practice and learn
from how you change.
Yogic knowledge comes from the type of empirical study that Alexander
engaged in, except it is believed by most of us that it is not the
work of one person but of many people refined over many years, because
of it's breadth, depth and sophistication.
It is possible these people experienced it directly themselves. One
problem in yoga is that some people really have experienced what they
talk about and others have learned it by wrote or have fanciful
notions. Without the relevant experiences it is hard to judge which is
which.
A senior yogi told me that Yogi Bhajan asked some yogis to test the
teaching that venus lock is done with hands the opposite way round for
men and women. He asked teachers with large classes to get one side of
the room to do it the wrong way round and see if they could observe
any difference.
It is this incessant questioning and reevaluation of what they are
taught that has made yoga so successful. I believe there is more
scientific testing of yoga claims than AT claims, it remains a
surprise to me that this seemingly flaky eastern thing has embraced
western science more readily than AT has.
Keith.
Halvard Heggdal
May 4, 2014, 4:28:28 PM5/4/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, ohnj.p...@gmail.com, lord...@gmail.com
Hello John,
Yes, it could be extra-cranial pressures the Cranio-sacral practitioners feel.
Muscle, connective tissue, blod circulation. It could also be that they sense
movements because of their own pulse. Anyway, the bones don't move.
Then you have the problem that it isn't the cerebrospinal fluid they sense,
so what then of their theory?
And we haven't even begun to discuss why there should be any positive
health effects from manipulating the pulse of the cerebrospinal fluid. Should
it be any different than changing heart rate, which arguably functions best
left to itself?
The existence of a pulse (or pulses, some say it has multiple frequencies) is
not verified. This is a bit strange because with todays technology it is a piece
of cake (more or less) to meassure such a thing. So, where is the evidence?
Regards,
Halvard
Yes, it could be extra-cranial pressures the Cranio-sacral practitioners feel.
Muscle, connective tissue, blod circulation. It could also be that they sense
movements because of their own pulse. Anyway, the bones don't move.
Then you have the problem that it isn't the cerebrospinal fluid they sense,
so what then of their theory?
And we haven't even begun to discuss why there should be any positive
health effects from manipulating the pulse of the cerebrospinal fluid. Should
it be any different than changing heart rate, which arguably functions best
left to itself?
The existence of a pulse (or pulses, some say it has multiple frequencies) is
not verified. This is a bit strange because with todays technology it is a piece
of cake (more or less) to meassure such a thing. So, where is the evidence?
Regards,
Halvard
----- Original message -----
From: John Appleton <ohnj.p...@gmail.com>
To: alex...@googlegroups.com
John Appleton
May 8, 2014, 9:29:37 PM5/8/14
to alex...@googlegroups.com, ohnj.p...@gmail.com, lord...@gmail.com
Hello Halvard,
I'm basically on your side of this discussion. Some people feel that if a thing "works" in some sense to them, then lay off "complaining" about its explanation. I don't agree. There is something in the human spirit that wants to know the truth of a matter, not just that it may "work" for some. Truth for me is in the the simple, the clean, the archetypal. I just wanted you to clean up your argument to exclude the idea that internal brain pressure was necessary for skull bone movement. In addition, it is the body surface that I find most receptive to change and full of neurological information. Knowing that has changed my life completely. And, incidentally, I can create the sensation of skull shape changing at will, though I don't think that it does... only the tonal quality of the surface and near surface (to repeat myself) has changed.
John
John
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages