We already have within us what we need
to solve our problems and transform our lives...

We just have to learn to use it !


This is where LearningMethods comes in...   


On Belief Systems and Learning

A debate from the Alextech e-mail discussion group on the validity
of the premises of the Alexander Technique

Part 1

The lead-up to the debate... (if you don't want to read through the prior postings, you can skip straight to my first message which started it all off...

go to NEXT part    back to Introduction    go to INDEX

All contributions are copyright by their authors. Note that the e-mail addresses of the participants were valid at the time of the debate but may not be valid any longer.


Section One
— Articles leading up to the debate and David's invitation to discuss the issue.

  1.  David Langstroth — Compatibility —  17 June/98
  2.  Robert Rickover —  re: Compatibility —  18 June/98
  3.  Kay Hooper —  Compatibility with forward and up —  18 June/98
  4.  David Langstroth — epistemology — 19 June/98
  5.  John Coffin — re: epistemology — 18 June/98
  6.  John Wynhausen — compatible epistemology — 19 June/98
  7.  Robert Rickover — re: epistemology — 19 June/98
  8.  Kay Hooper — re: epistemology — 19 June/98
  9.  John Coffin — re: More heat, less light — 19 June/98
 10. David Langstroth — A few responses — 20 June/98
 11. David Gorman — re: Epistomology et al. — 20 June/98


Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 01:36:25 +0100
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
From: David Langstroth david@alexandertec.u-net.com
Subject: Compatibility

Bravo John Coffin! It is not often enough that the attempts to establish kinship between the Alexander Technique and other 'modalities' are assertively rebutted. it recently occurred to me that any intelligent person, attempting to understand the Technique by referring to articles and writings published by Alexander teachers in STATNews, on this list and elsewhere could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that the technique is a therapy compatible with absolutely everything else, from psychotherapy to yoga, from tai chi to massage. In fact, considering the relative infrequency of objecting voices, it could be concluded that this was the general consensus of the Alexander community as a whole.

Alexander devoted a great deal of space and energy in his books to establishing the fact that in terms of fundamental principles his technique was completely different from all of the other approaches to the human condition that were in vogue at the time, both orthodox and alternative. Although fashions have changed since then, and we have to consider 'modalities' that Alexander did not specifically discuss, the clash of fundamental principles is just the same today. It is a constant source of surprise that so many writers on the Technique seem oblivious to these principles. The assertions that I sometimes read are like claims that the Ku Klux Klan is compatible with Kabuki theatre because they are both group activities, they both express cultural or sub-cultural values, and they both wear masks! (and they both start with 'K')

Alexander disparaged any 'modalities' that were based on the following principles:

1) A specific approach. The view of the inseparability of mental and physical processes and the concept of psycho-physical unity means that any approach that addresses specific parts of the human being whilst ignoring others can only make changes by shifting the problem elsewhere. Massage for example is based on this principle, as is psychotherapy. There are a great many 'modalities' which claim to be holistic but if their practice is analysed they can be seen to be based on a specific approach or an amalgamation of specific approaches.

2) An end-gaining approach. It is pointless to try to attain personal change or growth through following precepts or examples without being provided with the means whereby to achieve this. The proper means-whereby for any human activity involves the conscious control of our co-ordinating mechanisms (the primary control) as well as the reasoned co-ordination and control of any specific actions (mental or physical) appropriate to the task at hand. Yoga for example is based on an end-gaining approach. Some may argue at this point that if they use the technique to study Yoga they can ensure the proper means-whereby. However the question arises, if you have the Technique, why study Yoga at all? I am admittedly ignorant about Yoga so you may convince me yet of its value. However before you do, consider the next principle.

3) An approach which is based not on reasoned observation, but on faith, superstition, tradition, or other primitive bases. This is a more philosophically difficult area as I cannot say that these approaches are completely false. However it also cannot be shown that there is any truth in them. To each his own to some extent. I agree with Alexander: there may be "'more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy', but it has always seemed to me that the first duty of man was and is to understand and develop those potentialities which are well within the sphere of his activities here on this earth." (CCC, 1924, p ix) The main point for this discussion on compatibility is that the Alexander Technique was developed from a rigorous scientific epistemology which does not marry with these other approaches, and will not, until they can be established through the same means of objective observation and verification.

4) An approach which mistakes effects for causes. An acquaintance of mine recently recounted to me the physiotherapy session he had attended for his back pain. He described the treatment he had received and his hopes that his pain would not recur. I asked him what, in the physiotherpist's view, was the cause of the pain. He described a compression of lumbar disks, a pressure on nerves and a spasmodic set of muscles. I asked him then what was the cause of those conditions, and he just stared blankly back at me, unaware of any explanation for the origins of these conditions. According to Alexander Technique, the cause lies in the manner of use of my acquaintance and how that brought about the effects described by his physiotherapist. Physiotherapy is ignorant of causes, treats only effects and leaves the root conditions unchanged, either to bring about a recurrence of the problem, or to create another and perhaps more serious one. Physiotherapy is only one such 'modality' which makes this fundamental error. Orthodox medicine does it as well in a great many areas. It is true that the short term analgesic effects of such treatments are valuable, however they cannot be said to be compatible with the technique. A problem can only be truly solved by removing its cause.

5) An approach which treats feelings as being reliable. We all know that Alexander discovered the unreliability of feelings. We cannot rely on them to tell us the state of affairs in ourselves or to serve as a reliable guide in any sort of activity, therapeutic or otherwise. The Technique asserts the need to develop the guidance of the conscious reasoning processes, representing a move forward from our instinctive and subconscious reliance on habit and feeling. The 'modalities' that are based on this principle are many indeed! (This is closely related to #2 above)

I have listed five principles which for the Alexander Technique are non-negotiable (There may be others as well). If you discard or fudge these in any way you no longer have the Alexander Technique. I urge anyone who is trying to combine the Technique with anything else to consider these carefully, and if their combination represents a compromise of these principles then it cannot be referred to as the Alexander Technique. Call it anything you like. Perhaps it's a new 'modality' altogether, but it's not the Technique.

Allow me now to illustrate the above arguments about compatibility by looking in more detail at psychoanayltic psychotherapy. I choose this subject only for the reason that I have had many discussions about it with a friend who is an Alexander Teacher and in my attempts to understand his point of view have both read and experienced something of it. He argues that together psychoanalysis and the Technique provide a complete package: Alexander for the physical, and psychoanalysis for the mental/emotional. However in doing so it is obvious that he does not maintain the concept of the technique as addressing the psycho-physical whole. He has confined it to the physical sphere. This change of definition allows the two to be combined but unfortunately it is no longer the Technique. Pschoanalysis is a specific approach, seeking psychic explanations for psychic problems and proposing psychic solutions. As such it is not compatible with the proper respresentation of the Technique which asserts the inseparability of mental and physical processes (see #1). When I have had the energy to follow the twists and turns of my friend's arguments and eventually confront him with this inconsistency he has claimed that in that case, Alexander is wrong. Well at least this is an honest assertion of his position, though perhaps not based on sound reasoning. I wonder why he continues to teach and promote a technique which he thinks is wrong.

Psychoanalytic psychotherapy is an attempt to understand human behaviour through accessing feelings, fantasies, dreams and other subjective material (see #5 - unreliability of feelings) and one of its most fundamental assumptions is of the dynamic unconscious, an intrapsychic entity which influences or drives our behaviour in sometimes irrational ways. It is significant that this entity has been constructed entirely on the basis of inferral. No one has any other evidence of its existence. This bears significant similarities to the inferral of gods and demons, characteristic of man's more primitive stages (see #3 - primitive basis), as external entities to account for otherwise inexplicable manifestations of behaviour. This intrapsychic structure is further divided into ego, superego and id (if you're a Freudian) or into internalised objects representing significant others in your childhood (if you favour the object relations theory). Alexander asserts that the dynamic unconscious is a mistaken assumption:

"The aggregate of these habits is so characteristic in some cases that we see how easily the fallacy arose of assuming an entity for the subconscious self, a self which at the last analysis is made up of these acquired habits and of certain other habits... Fortunately for us there is not a single one of these habits of mind, with their resultant habits of body which may not be altered..." (MSI 1946 p.51)

Finally, as an attempt effect a change in the human being, psychoanalysis does not offer the means whereby it can be achieved (see #2 - end gaining). It is significant that objective measures have been unable to find evidence of its success beyond the placebo effect and more subjective measures, such as asking those who have experienced it for their views, has similarly produced unremarkable results. Although there are enthusiasts, remember that 30% of people who have had lobotomies will speak in glowing terms about how good it has been for them!

At this point I shall come to a close. It is my intention to promote a reasoned understanding of Alexander and not just to disparage other 'modalities', but this necessarily involves discriminating between what makes sense and what doesn't. It is also not my intention to assert that Alexander is a complete and finished subject. I would argue to the contrary that there is still much to be discovered and there is much good work being done in the Alexander world in this regard. As well as the good work people are doing on directions for example, and other purely Alexander concepts, we should turn our attention to the observations that have been made in these other 'modalities'; but rather than accepting their interpretation we should look to re-theorise these observations from the standpoint of the Alexander Technique. Freud may have been working to a wrong principle but he was no dummy. What he saw may have great value if we recast it in Alexander terms. We also must be prepared to accept that Alexander could be wrong. Many great theories and practices have been superceded by better understanding. However we should only accept sound reasoning, observation and evidence in this regard and until such is forthcoming we should regard Alexander as providing the best explanation for human behaviour and the best practice for improving the human condition. Arguments on any other basis will not suffice.

David Langstroth, Cardiff, Wales


Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:04:05 EDT
From: Robert Rickover Rrick2@aol.com
To: david@alexandertec.u-net.com, alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Compatibility

In his thoughtful post, David Langstroth wrote:
"The proper means-whereby for any human activity involves the conscious control of our co-ordinating mechanisms (the primary control) as well as the reasoned co-ordination and control of any specific actions (mental or physical) appropriate to the task at hand. Yoga for example is based on an end-gaining approach. Some may argue at this point that if they use the technique to study Yoga they can ensure the proper means-whereby. However the question arises, if you have the Technique, why study Yoga at all? I am admittedly ignorant about Yoga so you may convince me yet of its value."

I guess the implication of this is: Why study anything other than the AT? Even FM seemed OK with applying his ideas to Golf (he wrote a whole chapter about it in UOS)- an end-gaining activity if ever there was one! Alexander could certainly be said to "have the Technique" and yet he was a deeply flawed individual. Maybe he could have benefited from (gasp!) therapy. Maybe even Yoga. Who knows.

David also wrote:
"The main point for this discussion on compatibility is that the Alexander Technique was developed from a rigorous scientific epistemology which does not marry with these other approaches, and will not, until they can be established through the same means of objective observation and verification."

Just what is this "rigorous scientific epistemology" and what "objective observation and verification" does that AT have that's missing from other approaches?

Robert Rickover


Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 14:16:23 -0500 (CDT)
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
From: fhooper@postoffice.ptd.net (Fred Hooper)
Subject: Compatibility with forward and up

Hi, all,

Are we having fun yet? I daresay, "Yes!"

Well, I have a confession: I used to believe or think or feel (or something) that I understood 'forward and up' until I got on this list.

What truly made me wonder was that there was such a bevy of opinions from long-time teachers on what this phrase means.

When I learned this phrase, it was much more than those dastardly three words. It was part of the entire directions, a part which does not seem to serve as well when dissected as when directed as a whole. My here-to-fore clear understanding of this segment was that the center of gravity of the head is forward and up of the top of the spine. Period. I never thought I had to know more than that if I were willing to trust this information and the hands of my teacher - ah! what an innocent!

How I incorporated - eek! such a physical word - that information was by visualizing the skeleton rather than a place or direction. That seemed to be a sufficient way to allow the nonessential work to drop away. In recent work with Chris Stevens, I realized that this process is both inhibitory and directive in terms of the support which actually travels through the skeleton and, only in a few cases, through muscles. (I've chatted about this before, so I will spare the details.)

And it was precisely this information that sent me away from other 'modalities" (I started this mess, too, didn't !?) which seemed intent on externalizing either my ailment or my treatment. And, somehow in that novitiate state, I viewed all of this as scientific and sensible, because, well, it's how we ARE.

If this is truly how we ARE, it doesn't matter what we DO. If we ARE somehow other, it also doesn't matter what we DO. So, if I enjoy tai chi, which I do and DO, but am aware of how I AM through the AT, it will be far more profitable than it would be otherwise. If I AM less compatible with my design, the tai chi will be less enjoyable and possibly harmful.

What I have noticed, however, is that many people come to the AT without the intention of BEING better, but of DOING better. I certainly did. So, while other 'modalities' may not achieve the same end, they may be very appropriate means to explore the benefits of the technique.

Be well,
Kay S. Hooper


Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 00:44:56 +0100
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
From: David Langstroth david@alexandertec.u-net.com
Subject: epistemology

Hello list,

Following my posting on "Compatibility" I have been asked to clarify what I mean by "rigorous scientific epistemology" and how the AT has been established through "objective observation and verification" in ways different from other approaches.

Epistemology is the philosophy of what counts as true, what counts as valid evidence to support claims to knowledge. It is the often implicit set of values which underlies any domain of knowledge, be it religious, scientific, personal or whatever. In the case of many religions for example, the standard by which claims of truth are judged is by referral to a sacred book. Scientific method employs a different epistemology, one in which references to the Bible, the Torah or the Koran or any other sacred text are not acceptable as evidence to support a claim to knowledge. Rather, knowledge claims are based on evidence which is objectively gathered, analysed using logical train of reasoning and theorised in the context of the body of scientific knowledge which already exists.

One of the most important words in the previous sentence is "objective". Objective evidence is that which can be operationally defined so that it can be observed and recorded by any outside person, regardless of bias. In the AT for example we can describe a faulty habit of use, and in demonstration this can be observed by a whole room full of people. We can change this habit, and again our observers can detect the change. And, when a lasting change of habit is brought about this can be correlated with improvements in health and performance, also empirically established through medical or other professional assessment.

Scientific epistemology cannot however accept subjective experience as valid evidence to support a knowledge claim. If no one else has any way to detect your spiritual experience or the movement of energy that you feel, then your claims to the existence of these events, and consequently what they mean, cannot be accepted within a scientific epistemology. This does not mean that they are false or that the accompanying theory is untrue, rather that it has not been shown to be true and until objective evidence is obtained will be treated as an unproven idea.

Alexander differs from many other approaches also in terms of verification. Scientific epistemology demands that the process by which objective evidence is gathered must be repeatable. If it worked once it must work again. If it does not then those first results must be discounted as perhaps by-products of a faulty method. Alexander Technique is as far as I am aware consistent in its repeatability. Every time you help a student to change his/her habits, the correlated areas of health and performance improve. Although I am aware that many people will claim that the AT has not worked for them, I am confident that you will find in those cases, that they have failed to put the process correctly into practice, to act against their feelings and change their habits. I contrast this with other approaches which do not always work or which claim to work when there is no objective evidence of success.

And, in setting out his theory to account for his observations, Alexander took full account of the existing body of scientific knowledge, framing his theory in that context. His theory drew on the detailed knowledge of anatomy, but provided a larger explanation as to how all these pieces are actually co-ordinated; it embraced the laws of physics (gravity, atmospheric pressure etc); but it challenged the assumption of mind/body duality. Other approaches sometimes form a logical internal connection between all their own concepts but take insufficient account of the body of scientific knowledge that previously exists or later comes into being and are thus incompatible with it. This problem can be seen in the retreat that mainstream Christianity has been forced into on the question of the origins of man and the universe.

As a final thought on this subject, let me just say that scientific epistemology is actually somewhat more complicated than I have thus far described. In spite of its rigorous rejection of anything but objective evidence, the whole of science is in fact based on fundamental assumptions: for example the assumption that there is an objective world to be described, that everything, including this email, doesn't just exist in your head. Postmodern thinkers have also drawn attention to the fact that what poses as objectivity is often pervaded with bias, and that science can never escape this, no matter how strictly it defines its epistemology. This means that it is fundamentally imperfect, and philosophers can only wrestle with such internal inconsistencies.

I hope this has served to clarify my earlier posting and thanks to everyone for their patience in sifting through my thoughts. I look forward to your comments.

David Langstroth, david@alexandertec.u-net.com Cardiff, Wales


Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 20:59:04 EDT
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
From: JohnC10303@aol.com
Subject: Re: epistemology

Hello list:

An early reviewer described "Man's Supreme Inheritance" as 'common sense systomitized.' (with better spelling than mine)

One of the truisms of scientific method is that "Objective observation is philosopher's make believe" (Medawar). Deconstructionists and other con men take this to mean that if objective observation doesn't exist, objective truth does not exist either and that anything anyone wants to believe is as 'true' as anything else. Of course, such a view fades quickly the farther you get from university lit. departments. The moon is, after all, NOT made of green cheese; Richard Nixon IS a crook, no matter how many New Right bullyboys declare otherwise.

One of the great things about the Technique is that it demonstrates, at the most personal level, the unreliablity of subjective experience. Few philosophers seem to have considered that the 'reality' inside one's own skin cannot be known with perfect certainty. At the same time (and by the same process) we learn some simple methods of objectively monitoring our own activity. Our objectivity, our observation, and the activity may be far from perfect, but we have standards of evaluation that coincide with the physiological facts and permit ongoing improvement.

Another point: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." One of the problems of linking the Technique to 'other modalities' is that no evidence is extraordinary enough to support their claims. Many valid, useful, empirical PRACTICES are shackled to fanciful, authoritarian or silly THEORIES. If a therapy "works" to the satisfaction of the patient or therapist (both of whom are VERY poorly situated to make such an assesment) the theory is accepted without cavill.

It is worth noting that the scientists who have endorsed the Technique: Sherrington, Coghill, Dart, T.D.M. Roberts, Garlick etc. were the ones best equipped to find fault with Alexander's teaching on neurophysiological and anatomical terms, the Technique 'made sense' to them in the light of their knowledge in their own fields. They did not endorse Alexander on the basis of subjective relief experienced as "patients."

John Coffin


Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 04:35:00 +0000
From: john wynhausen wynhaus@clandjop.com
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: compatible epistemology

The intellectual foundation of the work is undoubtedly deep. No other modality can claim such a foundation. But lets get real. Where we live is more compost heap than colloquium.

I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but so what if feelings are unreliable! I haven't found many thoughts that were too terribly reliable either.

The way I see it is that some of us are fundamentalists and others are not. Fundamentalists seem to want the rest of us to accept their fundamentalism. A strong characteristic of us fundamentalists is our need to be right. I suspect FM addressed this question somewhere in his rightings. Didn't he say: "When you are right you won't know it and you won't care anyway." We fundamentalists couldn't possibly be right, if we were we wouldn't care as to the rightness of any other modality.

Lets briefly talk modality. For more than 99% of the world Alexander technique is a modality. It even sounds like a modality. For us chosen few who have groked the Alexandrian ontological wave....let us at least have pity and compassion for those still caught in the delusional world of modalities. It is really up to us to show the rest their way out of their dellusional perspectives. But God help us if and when we do.

I am finding Yoga to be a near perfect vehicle for teaching Alexander. First it give us something to do. Then it gives us a great deal to undo. Furthermore, Yoga seems very forgiving. I can do it all wrong and still come out feeling right. Needless to say, I like feeling right whether its reliable or not. I understand all that stuff about the unreliability of feeling when it comes to changing coordination. But how often do I really need to change my coordination? Not too often. Most of the time my coordination gets me through things just fine.

When I want to learn to be a little less critical and a little more analytical, I turn to my experience and training in the technique. When I want to work a little easier and play a little harder, I use a little direction. I had a flash tonight about the difference between people and animals. Animals are far more honest and far better coordinated than we are. They have it all over us in those areas. They are also incredibly charming. But the main thing that people have that animals don't have is a choice in following directions. I won't vouch for the reliablity of that thought but it illustrates a point am trying to make. If you follow your own direction, what need for anyone else to follow it...no need at all. In fact, if you really follow your own direction, its laughable that you would ever need to teach this stuff. Everything around you would simply fall into alignment and rhythm with you. We only need this stuff cause we aren't quite right yet. Once we're right, we won't need it anymore.

Yoga which may go back more than 2000 years seems to have grasped this basic fact and has learned to swing with it. I don't want to denigrate any of the high sounding ideas shared on this server, but really why should I care who gets helped by what as long as it doesn't keep me from knowing how to help myself.


Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 08:34:38 EDT
From: Robert Rickover Rrick2@aol.com
To: david@alexandertec.u-net.com, alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: epistemology

In a message dated 6/18/98 5:47:03 PM,

David Langstroth wrote:
"In the AT for example we can describe a faulty habit of use, and in demonstration this can be observed by a whole room full of people. We can change this habit, and again our observers can detect the change. And, when a lasting change of habit is brought about this can be correlated with improvements in health and performance, also empirically established through medical or other professional assessment."

In my experience, the same can be said about lots of other modalities - at least to the same extent as is true for the AT.

"Alexander differs from many other approaches also in terms of verification. Scientific epistemology demands that the process by which objective evidence is gathered must be repeatable. If it worked once it must work again. If it does not then those first results must be discounted as perhaps by-products of a faulty method. Alexander Technique is as far as I am aware consistent in its repeatability. Every time you help a student to change his/her habits, the correlated areas of health and performance improve. Although I am aware that many people will claim that the AT has not worked for them, I am confident that you will find in those cases, that they have failed to put the process correctly into practice, to act against their feelings and change their habits. I contrast this with other approaches which do not always work or which claim to work when there is no objective evidence of success."

So if it doesn't work, it's always the student's fault? Come on! Isn't it just possible that the AT (or, at least, certain versions of the AT) doesn't work for everybody?

"And, in setting out his theory to account for his observations, Alexander took full account of the existing body of scientific knowledge, framing his theory in that context. His theory drew on the detailed knowledge of anatomy, but provided a larger explanation as to how all these pieces are actually co-ordinated; it embraced the laws of physics (gravity, atmospheric pressure etc); but it challenged the assumption of mind/body duality. Other approaches sometimes form a logical internal connection between all their own concepts but take insufficient account of the body of scientific knowledge that previously exists or later comes into being and are thus incompatible with it."

And Alexander also borrowed from lots of other (presumaby end-gaining) systems that were around at the time. Every one of his "procedures" comes from somewhere else. (See "The First 43 Years of the Life of F. Matthias Alexander, Volume 2" by Joroen Staring for the well-documented details.) Also, Alexander held himself out for a time around 1900 as a teacher of the Delsarte Method - I don't know a lot about it, but I assume it would be just another "end-gaining" method in David's view. (You can read about this in Articles and Lectures published by STAT Books - even a copy of his promotional flyer!)

So...maybe the AT is not so unique after all.

Robert Rickover


Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:41:45 -0500 (CDT)
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
From: fhooper@postoffice.ptd.net (Fred Hooper)
Subject: Re: epistemology

Hi, all,

To quote one of my friends, "There is truth, and there is experience, and they are not always the same." Objectivity has to do with one's viewpoint as much as subjectivity, due to our inability in this realm to discern perfect truth 100% of the time. I suggest astronaut Edgar Mitchell's "The Way of the Explorer" for those who need an "objective" scientist's view on subjectivity.

As for therapies, the dreaded modalities, etc., a little info from Don Campbell's "The Mozart Effect":
"In my own professional life, I am constantly aware of the power of the mind. I remind my students, who are largely health-care professionals, teachers, and musicians, that for most reversable illnesses, 20 percent of all people get well, regardless of the system, technique or practitioner. Unfortunately, another 20 percent never get well, no matter how many systems, therapists, or, for the matter, Mozart violin concertos, they employ. My hope is to reach the 60 percent in the middle, who can benefit tremendously from music and creative arts therapies."

Of course, the obvious next question is to define "the mind".

Be well,
Kay S. Hooper


Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 17:11:51 EDT
From: JohnC10303@aol.com
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: More heat, less light

Hello list:

We need to remember that there is a difference between "disparaging modalities" and refusing to subordinate the Technique to them. This keeps us clear of any duty to be authorities on everything. Of course, a knowledge of the Technique is an enormous asset in just about any practice, but this does not make any practice we follow 'equivalent' to the technique.

When people think seriously about human activity, they tend to speak in language that Alexandrians feel kinship with. Martial arts, yoga, voice instruction and athletic coaching are all peppered with aphorisms and ideas that seem Alexandrian even if they are buried among end-gaining or superstition. (Or if Mr. Staring accuses FM of retroactively plagiarising them)

From an Alexandrian standpoint, we ARE particularly qualified to recognize end-gaining, dualism, over specification etc. This SHOULD give us a great of protection from being misidentified or co-opted.

I would like to believe that an Alexander teacher's 'outside' beliefs; in trickledown economics, subluxations, white supremacy, astrology, "New Age" (rhymes with sewage) vitalism etc. etc. would not intrude on their understanding and teaching of the Technique. This seems to be a vain hope. Subjective, irrational, authoritarian self-validating systems cannot co-exist with the kind of open, questing spirit the Technique requires; the mental gymnastics needed to protect such attitudes from contrary evidence are a constant drain on the energies of those trapped by them.

Yoga may be 2000 years old, Aikido about 75 years old. Their age or 'Asianness' has very little to do with how well they are taught, or how much we may or may not benefit from them. They are not related to the Technique, they do not 'anticipate' the Technique and the Technique is not drawn from them (sorry, Mr. Staring).

John Coffin

Sheesh, this is a messy note. Several threads at once. Lets all go to the blackboard and write 500 times: "The Alexander Technique is not a therapy. Alexander teachers don't diagnose illness. Alexander teachers don't treat illness. The Alexander Technique is not an 'alternative' to any (appropriate) treatment."


Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 02:02:56 +0100
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
From: David Langstroth david@alexandertec.u-net.com
Subject: A few responses

Hello list,

I'd like to address a few of the issues that have been raised in reply to my previous postings.

1. Robert Rickover correctly points out that Alexander wrote about applying his technique to golf. However I disagree with the argument that Robert seems to be making that this sets the precedent to apply the technique to anything and everything. Alexander also wrote about deep breathing exercises, faith healing and hypnosis and his thesis in those cases was that they were incompatible with his technique. The difference between golf and these other examples is that golf is a game, a social activity, an entertainment, even (according to some enthusiasts) a form of artistic expression, and worthwhile pursuing for these reasons. It is not based on any intention to bring about personal change, growth or therapeutic effects. Deep breathing exercises, faith healing and hypnosis on the other hand do attempt to effect such changes through means which according Alexander's analysis are faulty. It makes no sense whatsoever to "apply" the Technique to these activities, based as they are on faulty premises, as they are unable to obtain the results they promise by the means they propose.

I would like to ask why Robert seems to think that being "flawed" indicates a failure of the technique (Who among us is not flawed?). Alexander did not hold himself up as a finished pinnacle of perfection, but rather as change in process. To "have" the technique is to have the means to work on yourself and to change over a lifetime. Alexander was a good example of this, asserting even at the end of his life that he dare not stop working on himself. I would also be interested to hear how Robert thinks that Alexander "could have benefitted from (gasp!) therapy".

Finally Robert has misinterpreted my thoughts about instances where people will claim that the Technique has failed to work for them. I still maintain that you will find in those cases that they have failed to put the process correctly into practice, to act against their feelings and change their habits. I did not say this was all the student's fault. It's just as likely to be the result of poor teaching.

2. Nancy Lebovitz is right to point out that I have left out of my posting on "epistemology" any mention of "practical, rule-of-thumb, semi-traditional methods of doing things." Certainly they represent a "common sense" basis for knowledge and there may be much truth in them, but remember that they have also produced such gems as "the earth is the centre of the universe" and "my feelings are reliable".

3. In his comments John Wynhausen raises the notion of fundamentalism and the idea that we ought not to be telling others what to do. Certainly I agree with the latter, and if anyone has misinterpreted my postings as attempts to tell people what to do then this is unfortunate. Rather, my intentions are to engage in a reasoned debate about where the Technique fits in the world today. Naturally this entails criticism of positions which are logically untenable. What you do is your own business.

As to "fundamentalism" this is an inaccurate word to describe a position in a debate about Alexander. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary fundamentalism is "Strict adherence to traditional orthodox tenets held to be fundamental to the Christian faith". There are no alternative definitions. Even though modern usage has expanded this definition it retains a connotation of fanaticism, and of being out of touch with one's reasoning.

David Langstroth, david@alexandertec.u-net.com Cardiff, Wales


Date: June 20, 1998
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
From: David Gorman 100653.2057@compuserve.com
Subject: re: Epistomology et al.

Hi all,

I have been following this thread and there is so much I would like to respond to, but as all my thoughts revolve around the same issue, I shall just choose one part of one post in order to get started:

In a message dated 6/18/98 9:01 PM, John Coffin wrote:
"One of the great things about the Technique is that it demonstrates, at the most personal level, the unreliability of subjective experience."

This, of course, depends a great deal on what you mean by ‘experience’. So often Alexander people think it is the senses that are unreliable and therefore that their experience is unreliable. In the "unreliable sensory appreciation, it is "unreliable appreciation" not "unreliable senses". There is nothing at all unreliable about the senses--in fact there is very important--dare I say essential--information in our experiences. The problem is that we are interpreting the feelings in a faulty (or misconceived or delusional) way. That is all.

Take the experience that so many people have had of thinking that they are standing upright then, after some work from an Alexander teacher, they feel pitched forward and almost falling forward--so much so that they often ‘correct’ for this and return to their usual ‘upright’ standing. Telling the pupil that their subjective experience is unreliable at best only makes their learning unnecessarily difficult. Better by far that we help them understand what they are in fact experiencing so that they can learn how their ‘experiential’ system does work.

In the case of my example above, they need to understand that any on-going posture will come to feel ‘normal’ and ‘upright’ if it is held as a fixed way of being for a period of time. Our senses don’t tell us ABSOLUTELY where we are in space, but RELATIVELY how our relationship to space and support is changing. When the teacher brings about a change which is obvious to the ‘outsider’ is more upright but which the pupil feels as bent forward and falling, there is important information there. The misinterpretation on the pupil’s part is that these feelings are describing the position of the moment. They are not and never will. The feelings are ACCURATELY describing the change that took place. The pupil is indeed bent forward RELATIVE to where they were before (which was bent backward).

The pupil was also more fixed (especially in his or her legs) as one has to be to maintain such a backward bend. After the change he/she is now more free because he is, in fact, more upright and less holding is needed. However he doesn’t feel it this way. He feels ‘as if’ he is falling (and reacts accordingly) because his APPRECIATION (or interpretation) of the ‘bent forward’ feeling as being where he actually is in space at the moment combines with the ‘freedom’ feeling to make him feel ‘as if’ he was falling, when, in fact, he is actually not moving at all.

If we (as teachers) know that this is how the system works, we will be able to invite him or her not to react in that moment of her ‘interpretation’ and instead allow herself to recognize what is really happening. Moments go by and she has not hit the ground so she cannot be falling. The mirror can show that she is not bent forward at all. Faced with these new ‘facts’ which violate her usual ‘appreciation’, she can begin to realize what the actual message is from her senses.

This actual message--the reason why we actually are able to feel our sensory experience--is not to give us a description of our current place in space as we thought. It is to show how we have changed. We are now much freer THAN BEFORE and much more forward THAN BEFORE.

Now, often people with their end-gaining interpretations will take that as something to work toward, thereby ending up further and further forward in an attempt to recapture the feeling. But the real point of that original sensory experience is that it is very very ACCURATELY revealing to the pupil what was happening posturally the moment before--he was leaning MUCH MORE back and was MUCH MORE fixed than he is now.

Take another very common example. That of people who feel it takes effort to stand up from the chair. They are definitely experiencing effort and their APPRECIATION of that sensory experience is that the effort is what is getting them out of the chair. They will usually be utterly convinced that they cannot get up without that effort ! However, when they have the experience of getting out of the chair with no effort at all, they are amazed. Often they are convinced that the teacher must have lifted them because ‘someone’ must have done the effort.

But we miss the learning opportunities if we just try to teach them to inhibit and direct and achieve that ‘better use’ without the ‘end-gaining’ effort. They will have failed to understand that the reason they got out of the chair so easily was NOT because they were now inhibiting or directing or lengthening or that their necks were free. They got out of the chair so easily because that is SIMPLY WHAT HAPPENS when a human is not interfering by getting in their own way and trying to ‘do’ it. Some people (not to mention animals and little kids) move like this all the time because they never have become stuck in interfering. If we help them understand their experience they will realize that they did not ‘do’ anything to get up--it just happened that easily when they stopped doing their ‘trying’ to get up, which they were convinced they had to do simply because they’d always felt the effort and identified it as what was getting them up.

Like my example above, we can also help them realize that they had completely mis-appreciated their previous feeling of effort. It was manifestly NOT what was getting them up. When they stopped trying ‘to get up’ they came up MORE EASILY. Therefore, how is it possible to interpret that feeling as "what it takes to get up", when it is much more obvious that it is the feeling of how much they were working against themselves? A valuable bit of information if there ever was one.

If a person does understand (in the biggest sense of the word) what these experiences are signifying, they will not be feeling that their EXPERIENCES are unreliable and will not be expecting some new and better Alexander experiences which hopefully someday they can count on. They will instead, be living in a different reality whereby, if they should happen to have the same experience while standing, they will recognize it as working against themselves rather than their old idea of the effort necessary to get up. That is, they will be well on their way to a reliable sensory appreciation--which is not some far-off holy grail of Alexanderhood, but a quite directly achievable change within some few dozens of lessons.

I could go on and on with many more examples of the actual feelings (read interpretations) people have and how a teacher who has seen through them can help a pupil re-interpret them to understand better how things work. That is, to show how the exact same feeling was not at all ‘unreliable’ (as in not-to-be-paid-attention-to), but rather carried essential information for understanding what is going on. IT IS THE INTERPRETATION THAT IS UNRELIABLE, NOT THE FEELING.

Our wonderful millions-of-years-evolved systems having been sending us these important messages all our lives; most of the time we’ve just been wanting to shoot the messenger and get to a better feeling that we like. Instead, what we need is to GET THE MESSAGE-because all too often we are having the experience but completely missing the meaning. And this goes not just for all our pre-Alexander experiences, but all of the Alexander experiences too if we have not come to a reliable appreciation of what we are actually feeling. By the way, this understanding radically changes the process (or form) of the work, since it no longer so necessary to ‘give’ new experiences to the pupil so that they have a contrast or a sense of ‘better use’, when we can help someone make sense of the experiences they are already having--every day.

Looked at this way, it is possible to go further than Alexander’s phrase of "unreliable SENSORY appreciation" and recognize that what it is really that we are caught in is an "unreliable REALITY appreciation". In other words, the way we see things is a delusion. Our constructs, or belief systems are faulty, not our bodies. Faulty is not even the best word here at all. INACCURATE is a much better word. The real learning involved is in coming to new understandings, so that we don’t end up ‘solving’ our problems, we end up in living in a whole new reality.

It got very interesting to me as I began years ago to follow through the various ‘appreciations’ that I had inherited throughout my life including the ones I’d got from my Alexander training and teaching. Over the years, as I began to explore my own and others’ experiences and see the ‘constructs’ or belief systems that they imply, it became apparent that there are numerous of these ‘inaccuracies’ (or faulty appreciations or misconceptions) within the traditional Alexander viewpoint of how we see people’s problems are and what we see as the solution to help them.

The biggest of these centres around the idea that people have ‘unconscious’ habits like pulling their heads back that they do not know that they are doing. But before I just leap into this, I am aware that I am treading on thin ground as to how all this might be received. I have babbled on long enough for this posting and would rather sound out the waters before proceeding. I would be very happy to go on if there seems to be true interest in looking at what we do and whether, in fact, our deeply held ‘Alexander’ way of seeing things is true. I hope you will forgive my reticence to just carry on, but I have had some unfortunate experiences with people who did not like to have their beliefs challenged and I do not wish to repeat them.

As David Langstroth said, "Scientific method employs a different epistemology, one in which references to the Bible, the Torah or the Koran or any other sacred text are not acceptable as evidence to support a claim to knowledge." We must, of course, include here Alexander’s books. As David also said, anyone can only claim the Technique is ‘true’ if they take account of the body of knowledge that previously exists or later comes into being and if, of course, the Technique remains compatible with this new knowledge.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Alexander was a genius and moved the state of our understanding forward a huge step from that of the times around him in the first half of this century. He himself seems to have thought there was a lot of room for improvement and often seems to have said that he wasn’t happy with the way he was able to express things and that he’d just started a "new field of enquiry" that he hoped others would carry on and take it even further.

As you know, this forum is set up so that if you just hit your email REPLY button your reply goes only to the person who sent the original message. If anyone in this forum is interested in hearing any more, I would appreciate it if they let me know in a posting to the whole forum rather than privately. I, too, shall post my reply to the whole forum. This way everyone can see what is happening and everyone can join in.

warmly,
David


Continued in PART 2...

go to NEXT part    back to Introduction    go to INDEX


Do you have anything to add to this debate?

After reading this debate, if you have any contributions you'd like to make to add to the debate, you can do so by sending an e-mail to: <debate at learningmethods.com> with your contribution. If you are responding to a particular posting, copy the reference from the Index or note it in your message. It may take a few days to get your response on-line so please be patient. You will be notified by e-mail when it has been uploaded.