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 8

go to NEXT part    go back to PREVIOUS part    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 Eight
— and continues...

  1.  John Coffin — re: reply to Mike Blayney and John Coffin — July 3/98
  2.  David Gorman — re: reply to Mike Blayney and John Coffin — July 4/98
  3.  Ann Penistan — replies to replies on Mr. Gorman's article — July 2/98
  4.  David Gorman — Beliefs, etc: reply to Peter Ruhrberg — July 4/98
  5.  John Coffin — re: replies to replies on Mr. Gorman's article — July 3/98
  6.  David Gorman — final reply to John Coffin’s argument — July 4/98
  7.  Peter Ruhrberg — replies to replies etc. on Mr. Gorman's article — July 4/98
  8.  David Gorman — replies to replies etc. on Mr. Gorman's article — July 5/98
  9.  Alex Leith — re: David Gorman — experiences in lessons — July 4/98
 10.  Alex Leith — Objective Reality — July 4/98
 11.  John Coffin — re: final exercise in futility — July 4/98


Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998
From: JohnC10303@aol.com
To: 100653.2057@compuserve.com, alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: reply to Mike Blayney and John Coffin

Hello list; and David

We're getting closer. Here's a visual aid:
Playing well is to the violinist as Standing 'correctly' is to the sloucher.

This is the comparison I was making. NOT:
the violinist's tension/discomfort = the sloucher's 'bad posture.'

Each individual is acting on an incorrect conception in attempting to fulfill a perceived need.

Dewey's original example discusses this rather well: "Conditions have been formed for producing a bad result, and the bad result will occur as long as the bad conditions exist . . . It is as reasonable to expect a fire to go out when it is ordered to stop burning as to suppose that a man can stand straight in consequence of a direct action of thought and desire. The fire can be put out only be changing objective conditions; it is the same with rectification of bad posture."

The 'conditions ... for producing a bad result' are the sloucher's "on-going way of being--his thoughts, feelings and belief system.' It is these conditions (ways of being etc.) which much change in order for him to INDIRECTLY rectify his 'bad posture.'

Thus far the violinist and the sloucher are in the same boat. However I think the sloucher's trouble involves another aspect. As David writes:
"She [the violinist] can (and did) learn that the best way to achieve her goal is to stay out of the way and recognize that she plays better when she is not trying to directly play better"

It is almost certainly true that the sloucher's 'bad posture' is better than the temporary attitudes he imposes on himself in the attempt to improve. The process of unlearning his defective conception (way of being ... thoughts ... belief system) will involve not only ceasing to act on his old conceptions; but learning better conceptions IN THE PROCESS. If the sloucher refrains from acting on his old conception, he must in the process have an unfamiliar experience. This new/old experience (whether or not the teacher's hands are involved) is a direct insight into possibilities which were outside his previous repertoire of possibility.

In either case the teacher's job is not to 'improve' posture or fiddle-playing. The violinist already possesed a range of experience which included all she needed to know in order to 'play well,' the sloucher lacks that experience in his (less conscious) activity in the act of standing. The re-educational process is still essentially the same for both in that new(ish) experiences are achieved in the process.

John Coffin


Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1998, 12:04am
From: David Gorman 100653.2057@compuserve.com
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: reply to Mike Blayney and John Coffin

JohnCoffin wrote on July 3rd, 1998:
"In either case the teacher's job is not to 'improve' posture or fiddle-playing. The violinist already possesed a range of experience which included all she needed to know in order to 'play well,' the sloucher lacks that experience in his (less conscious) activity in the act of standing. The re-educational process is still essentially the same for both in that new(ish) experiences are achieved in the process."

John,

In order to compare notes and processes, I would be curious as to what specifically the re-educational process for the 'sloucher' would consist of in practice? Could you give a rough idea of the kind of process or way of approach you would use?

This would help me to see what you mean and if we are close or far...

warmly,
David


Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 05:25:02 -0400
From: Ann Penistan Egil_Annie@compuserve.com
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: replies to replies on Mr. Gorman's article

Hello Alextech Forum,

John Coffin writes:
"Well here's a how-d'ye-do. If we question Mr. Gorman's claims of originality for his new work, we are "interpreting them in the only way (w)e can, which is from (our) own background and experiences." and must attend a weeklong workshop. What does this say about those who ACCEPT his claims? I catch a whiff of 'heads I win, tails you lose' in this thread."

Please tell me what this does say about "those" who ACCEPT his claims. "Those" people who are accepting his claims, are they doing so after finding out on their own or simply without doing any research at all? Do you know any of these people and have you actually discussed or even exchanged work with these people before you are so quick to judge them?

In the third part of his article David stated: and the capital's are mine except for the word IS.

"Of course, I don't expect all these words to necessarily convince anyone. Words cannot do that. You'd need to come and see for yourself again and again what happens. OR BETTER STILL, open your eyes from this new point of view in YOUR WORK and see what happens when you find out what the person IS actually up to...

David has quite explicitly expressed his desire for individuals to find out on their own, if they are curious. He has even stated a couple of possibilities of how to do this:
1. An INVITATION to come to a workshop, or a statement that it would make sense to come, not a "MUST". Simply an emphasis on the fact that it helps enormously to be a participant of a lesson in order to get personal experience and understanding of this work.

Is this so remarkable? Would you be so willing to discuss the merits and faults of Alexander's works with someone who has only read a bit about it and is convinced in their conclusions?

2.OR, to make the experiments ON ONE'S OWN, and he has so generously supplied the means-whereby one can start to do this. Of course, if we simply don't do what we always do when teaching then maybe something new will occur!? What does it actually mean to take that step and throw yourself into the unknown while teaching, in such a way that you have no idea what will happen next; in such a way that you allow yourself that next moment of not knowing, and the next one..... And the next one....... And live that to see what happens to your teaching and to the learning for both you and that person you are living your experiment with. Experiences, many experiences over and over again bring knowledge.

John Wynhausen writes:
"But what is beautiful about AT is that for us retards, for whom energy directs thought, we can have the experience in our bodies first and later come back and start learning how to think."

Earlier he says:
"That key, the beliefs of the student , I would agree are a vital piece of the teaching/learning equation."

Many differing viewpoints that the Alexander Teaching world puts out create many different experiences. It is rare to ask the student what he or she is doing. It is rare to ask the student to draw from the experiences in their own lives.

Our lives are ripe with information about how we work.

By receiving a physical change, brought about by someone else’s skill, we receive some contrasting information about where we were. However the opportunity to find out how you got to the uncomfortable place to begin with no longer exists. Eventually you find yourself back at this uncomfortable place and you learned to get rid of it by someone else’s ability--not yours.

So where is your freedom to choose in this uncomfortable moment? Someone else, or your own efficiency at directing, is the only tool you have to get out of this uncomfortable place. This is not inhibition. Inhibiting reaction to the uncomfortable place, and living in that moment, without trying to change it, is your opportunity to find out FOR YOURSELF why you keep coming back to this uncomfortable place. You are then not trying to gain awareness through your body or trying to think yourself through something. You are just you, living and experiencing that moment. What then happens when you are truly not interfering in any way and truly making the choice to not do what you always do when faced with this uncomfortable place? That is yours to find out.

If we inhibit our usual reaction, which can sometimes be to direct ourselves, then we actually begin to see how we are operating in relationship to the world around us. This experience is not present so we can fit our ideas into it, rather a chance to seek the truth of the situation. A chance to stick around long enough in the moment to see what is happening.

Millions of years of evolution have given us an extraordinary CD ROM filled with encyclopaedic information about our nature. We do not need to direct farther away from the moment. We need to stop changing ourselves, and thus the moment, in order to start living the moment with all that we already are.

There is no need to come back later and think. You are present and free when you are not trying to change things with your own ideas. You are responsive. You can not do that which you already are.

Ann Penistan


Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 13:50:10 -0400
From: David Gorman 100653.2057@compuserve.com
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Beliefs, etc: reply to Peter Ruhrberg

I would like to add my voice to that of Rajal and thank you for taking the time to write up an account of your recent lesson and add it to the discussion. As usual, you are very articulate and clear.

Since you were responding to my invitation to correlate:
"people's actual thoughts/feelings/actions, AS EXPERIENCED BY THOSE PEOPLE, with the physical/functional coordinations AS SEEN BY ANY OUTSIDER."

and to:
"bring forward what you have found and how it relates to what makes sense to do to help someone. AND how you feel this relates to the 'Alexander Technique' as it is usually practiced."

Now, "we can debate the interpretations."

For us to discuss this, I can see a number of areas in the lesson where it will be helpful to clarify what were the person-with-the-problem's thoughts, feelings, or actions that she already has and that she brings to the piece of work, and which were the person-helping-them's perceptions, ideas, or proposed actions.

"She wished to see what she was doing while ironing. She also reported pain between the shoulder blades after having done that for a while in her usual way and she could imagine, but actually not believe that "ironing and not having pain" could go together."

These are all things that she sees, feels and reports.

"What she did, among other things, was that she raised her shoulder and elbow and sort of shoved the iron over the board, chiefly through rotating her whole shoulder girdle and shifting her weight from one foot to the other. There was an almost complete absence of rotation in the glenohumeral joint."

These are the things that you see from the outside. In addition, you see these things from your trained point of view. Someone trained in some other way of working (chiropractic, say, or body-mind-centering) would probably see different things. And would probably then take different actions.

"So we got an iron board and off she went.... ...The pain became noticeable to her."

After a short period of ironing, this pain signal comes to her. This is hers.

Notice, that from this point in the lesson onwards, you operate on the basis of your 'Alexander' training by drawing her attention to her use of her shoulder and arm (which is what you see). It is not what she feels--she feels a pain between her shoulder blades. Then, presumably because your 'Alexander' viewpoint has determined that her arm movements or lack of movement is where the problem is, you propose her other possibilities of arm/shoulder movement.

That is, acting on this viewpoint, you proceeded with the key-turning demonstration and YOUR movement of HER arm (according to your "knowledge of what one could call 'the manipulative side' of the technique") which gave her a new experiences of shoulder/arm functioning.

This is what Ann Penistan meant when she wrote:
"By receiving a physical change, brought about by someone else's skill, we receive some contrasting information about where we were."

Note that these were experiences she was NOT having before. From your 'Alexander' perspective, it seems to make sense to you to manipulate her arm, so that she can "experience how the shoulder joint is actually made to move" (according to YOUR current "knowledge of its structure", that is. This is not HER current knowledge--she didn't know about "third degree of freedom in the shoulder joint" before you showed her ("no, but I remember vaguely that there should be one.").

Please note that in all of this, I am simply pointing out the course that the lesson took and what that implies about the belief system behind that course of action, not making any personal judgements. I think Peter has been very clear in describing what he does and why he does it.

But note the number of 'beliefs' in here. There is an assumption that the shoulder/arm movements as you did see them WERE the problem and the reason for the pain. And there is the assumption that if she learns to move her shoulder/arm according to how it "is actually made to move", she will have solved her ironing problem. And, of course, there is the assumption that this is how the shoulder/arm is ACTUALLY "made to move."

What if her whole coordination (not just her shoulder/arm) as she normally went about ironing was a perfectly integrated coordination of what she is actually up to? We don't know what she is actually up to in this lesson because you got her involved in changing her 'manner of use' of her shoulder/arm rather than finding out what she was doing/feeling/thinking while she was ironing.

This is what Ann Penistan meant when she added (my capitals):
"By receiving a physical change, brought about by someone else's skill, we receive some contrasting information about where we were. HOWEVER THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT HOW YOU GOT TO THE UNCOMFORTABLE PLACE TO BEGIN WITH NO LONGER EXISTS."

What you taught her will certainly enable her to take control of her physical system more and more as she 'learns' how her arm works, and another time in a different activity, how her legs work and another time, how her bending or breathing works, etc. And with all this learning her physical functioning will probably be a lot better.

BUT, she will not have found out IF there was something in the way SHE was going about the ironing that her system was letting her know was not constructive. By she I mean not what her arm/shoulder functioning was, but what the human being was up to. Instead she will have learned to override her 'innate' coordination in favour of a learned one.

As you said, Peter, we don't know what Alexander did or whether he would have done the lesson the same as you, but what you did certainly seems to me to be in the territory of the Alexander belief system and hence its practice.

I hope it is clear to see that it is the 'Alexander' viewpoint that would steer you off into working with her, hands-on or off, on changing the arm/shoulder functioning.

There is another possibility at that hinge point in the lesson. It is to find out what SHE was thinking feeling, doing, FROM HER POINT OF VIEW, while she is normally ironing. Sometimes (like with the violinist) the information about what someone is up to comes up right away. Other times I need to spend the lesson teaching them how to use their own symptom in the real life situation when it happens later to wake them up enough in that very moment to find out what they were then really thinking, feeling doing, reacting to, etc. It may take the time between this lesson and the next for the person to find out what they were doing, but it always does come up sooner or later.

We can't go back and redo the lesson again here in a different way, so we won't know right now, but you could try this different direction the next time or with another student. At the very least I can suggest the kind of things that do regularly come up so you can see what I mean. One of the most common in this situation is that the person does not like ironing and is trying to get it over with as soon as possible, as if they can make things go faster than they go. This belief is not true but it sure does lead to strain and tension.

Maybe they will find that they consistently 'go off' in their thinking or imagination--the physical/functional manifestation of that is usually a stiffness and 'mechanicalness'. Experiments of simply being present in each moment of her ironing will quickly show her the difference in what is happening and how she feels

In any case the purpose here is to correlate the physical/functional organization (what you see and she feels as pain) with her inner life, her attitude, her beliefs, etc. In order to actually find out what, in any correlation, there is, one needs to NOT jump in and use your 'Alexander' tools to fix things up...

If you do that the person ends up experiencing your idea of how the arm should work, on top of which she is now 'learning about' her body and how to run it (or not interfere) in a way that she didn't have to before. This is OK if your belief system says that is what has to happen to gain 'conscious constructive control', and surely this is the belief system that your pupil will have too.

However, if we have even the possibility that there is nothing that needs fixing in the organization or coordination, but rather in the whole lived construct, then we have a very different kettle of fish.

Your pupil didn't have to pay attention to her physical functioning system before, now she does. The belief system says this is necessary. If she found where and how she was misconceiving reality, she would have learned more and the physical functioning of her body would take care of it self, as it was doing before (remember, it was her wonderful system that was sending the message saying, "ouch, something you are up to is not constructive").

Hope that this helps,

warmly,
David


Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998
From: JohnC10303@aol.com
To: Egil_Annie@compuserve.com, alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: replies to replies on Mr. Gorman's article

Hello list: and whoever

This gets back to epistomological fundamentals. I am not arguing that David Gorman's new vein of work is uninteresting or valueless. I am questioning whether he has any justification in founding a new sect on the basis of his current emphasis.

Gorman's three part post laid out a claim to the discovery of new principles and attempted to back it up with some anecdotes. Only after a few of us raised doubts did Gorman suggest that our unwillingness to be instantly converted represented some lack IN US. I don't know how many people responded to the original post 'posititively' or how many of those concurred with the idea that the matters discussed represented a new discovery. The implication of David's response was that those who agreed with him (on the basis of testimony unsupported by demonstration) were, de facto, 'right' while those who did not agree were automatically wrong and only needed to share in the new revelation to be converted.

You write:
"Do you know any of these people and have you actually discussed or even exchanged work with these people before you are so quick to judge them?"

I must ask in return:
Do YOU know or have you exchanged work with anyone who disagrees with you? Why does your own 'quickness to judge' not register in your consciousness? And, perhaps most importantly, why in all of your wordy post do you never mention your direct involvement as one of David's chief acolytes in LearningMethodsŪ?

David's posts have drawn attention to a serious lack in the content of 'The Alexander Technique as taught.' This is a Good Thing. I do not agree that the principles he speaks of are not discussed in Alexander's books. I would recommend reading Dewey's Introduction to Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual to anyone who is asked to evaluate claims for 'new systems' of any kind.

John Coffin


Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 13:51:44 -0400
From: David Gorman 100653.2057@compuserve.com
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: final reply to John Coffin’s argument

John Coffin wrote on July 4, 1998:
"This gets back to epistomological fundamentals. I am not arguing that David Gorman's new vein of work is uninteresting or valueless. I am questioning whether he has any justification in founding a new sect on the basis of his current emphasis."

John,

I can certainly see that you have reacted AS IF I was attacking you ("this homo certainly feels attacked" you wrote), and you are certainly taking what I write AS IF I am saying that those who agree with me are "de facto, right" and others (you seem to be including yourself) are "automatically wrong". No wonder you are reacting! Your language ("sect", "share in the new revelation to be converted", "accolyte", etc.) shows your attitude strongly in how YOU regard my postings. You seem to have taken it all very personally ("did Gorman suggest that our unwillingness to be converted represented some lack IN US") and have leapt to the defence of yourself and Alexander, as you know him (his writings, that is).

I must say that I have not felt this attitude from anyone else in this list. If your goal is to enlighten me or persuade me of your point of view, then this is certainly not doing it. If your goal is to persuade the other members of the list to share your own feelings about me and my work, I would suggest that your way of going about things says more about you than it does about me. I do not intend to argue these points with you. Our trading messages back and forth is coming to dominate this discussion and this is not constructive.

You have a right to your opinion of me and of my work, though you have never seen it. Even if you did see it, you may still feel that whatever principles I am operating under are already amply covered in the Alexander Technique (not the Alexander Technique that is generally taught, but the one that could be if we really understood Alexander, I suppose).

Again, you are entitled to YOUR OPINION of what is and what is not the Alexander Technique. I rather doubt that we are going to have any opinion changes here merely by the use of words. So, LET US AGREE TO DISAGREE... and let go of it...

What I am now doing now in my work seems different enough TO ME from the Alexander Technique as I know it, for me to call it a different work. There are two main reasons for this:

1. the PRACTICE of what I do is so different from the AT that I felt it important to differentiate it for the sake of any students being able to be clear what they are getting (in my opinion, remember). By the way, they were the ones who urged me to call me it something else in the beginning,

2. the DEVELOPMENT of what I do is going in directions that have nothing to do with Alexander as it is normally practiced (as I know it, remember) and I wish to proceed without conflict or reaction from the Alexander community.

Therefore, I have decided in the light of all my experiences and learning to leave the Alexander world. I am not asking anyone to agree with me. Personally, I do not care if anyone does or does not. I do not have to justify to anyone starting a new work under a different name. I expect that there are those who are quite happy that I have done so... (possibly lurking on the list at this moment).

I was happy to discuss with all of you the validity of what goes on (or doesn't go on) in the Alexander Technique--I have some 25 years of experience of it, including 9 years of running a training course and 40-some trained teachers. But, it seems pointless to me to discuss the validity of my new work (or the degree of difference of my work from that of ‘Alexander’) as none of you have any experience at all in it and so will not be in possession of the experience of those differences.

Would you discuss the validity of the Alexander Technique with someone who came onto the list and called it names but had not had a single lesson? Would you try to convince them in words? If you did, would you be surprised if you wouldn't get anywhere? No, you'd probably verify that the person had not had lessons and suggest that they do so before talking any further.

You might even do it as politely as that.

warmly,
David


Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 14:04:33 +0200
From: Peter Ruhrberg pruhrberg.at@cityweb.de
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: replies to replies etc. on Mr. Gorman's article

Dear List,

what would happen if we apply the following verse not only to whatever each and every one of us may have come to label as "the Alexander Technique", or not only to even Mr Alexander's whole work (whatever that might be), but generally -- to everything else in life -- as well?

"No matter what method of plan, system of thought, or ideas may finally be chosen as the best for dealing with man's shortcomings and difficulties in making changes, in the last analysis, success will depend upon the individual's capacity TO CARRY OUT A DECISION TO GAIN AN END BY THE CONSCIOUS EMPLOYMENT OF NEW 'MEANS-WHEREBY,' INVOLVING UNFAMILIAR PSYCHO-PHYSICAL EXPERIENCES WHICH FEEL WRONG, DISCOMFORT FREQUENTLY AMOUNTING TO IRRITATION, AND A SENSE OF UNSTEADINESS IN EQUILIBRIUM." (UCL 1946, p.105)

When we read David Gorman's article again, we perhaps will see that he did exactly that process I've emphasized in my quote.

That David Gorman decided to work in his new way AS IT MAKES SENSE TO HIM does, in my view, not necessarily mean that he really has thrown all of Mr Alexander's principles overboard, no matter how he calls his own teaching method.

I write that because I think that Mr Alexander's technique is not about any set of physical solutions, right directions or even right answers, but about a certain mental discipline, and about the process of study, learning and understanding in general. The quote above for example, as I understand it, is true for WHATEVER WE TRY TO ACCOMPLISH, including learning and teaching (and communicating with each other, for that matter).

David's decision to dissociate himself from the thing that is labeled as "Alexander Technique" in the general public is a decision which I certainly can understand. For years now I am constantly faced with a decision

1) either to call myself still an "Alexander Teacher" and be involved in an ongoing debate based on fundamental contradictions between what most people who I know understand the AT is, and my own understanding of Mr Alexander's principles;

2) or, for the sake of Mr Alexander's work, to stick to his principles as stated in his writings (as they start to make sense to me during the learning process I am doing to understand them), but not to call myself an "Alexander Teacher" anymore.

To having brought up that issue again with himself as an example is only one of the reasons why I'd like to thank David again for his article, as I did it already privately.

Best to you all,
Peter Ruhrberg, Columbusstr. 21, D-40549 Duesseldorf


Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 01:09:02 -0400
From: David Gorman 100653.2057@compuserve.com
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: replies to replies, tec. on Mr. Gorman’s...

Peter and list,

Thank you, you have put it wonderfully. Better than I did, I think. I certainly do not feel that I have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, nor "all of Mr Alexander's principles overboard, no matter how [he] calls his own teaching method"

I learned a great deal from my Alexander experiences. One of the things, among many, that I learned was to think for myself, and to let go of dogma (my own and others') when confronted with it.

Peter mentions his dilemma thus:
"David's decision to dissociate himself from the thing that is labeled as "Alexander Technique" in the general public is a decision which I certainly can understand. For years now I am constantly faced with a decision

1) either to call myself still an "Alexander Teacher" and be involved in an ongoing debate based on fundamental contradictions between what most people who I know understand the AT is, and my own understanding of Mr Alexander's principles;

2) or, for the sake of Mr Alexander's work, to stick to his principles as stated in his writings (as they start to make sense to me during the learning process I am doing to understand them), but not to call myself an "Alexander Teacher" anymore."

I know a lot of people in a similar position and I certainly was for quite a number of years until my decision was, in effect, made for me by the comments and attitudes of others.

For myself, I no longer have a dilemma as to what to do. I recognize that the majority of Alexander teachers do not think nor act the way I do (fine, no conflict, I just call what I do something else...), and while I have extreme gratitude for what I have learned from my teachers (and by extension Alexander who I never met except in his writings), I must follow my own experiences not those of others.

warmly,
David


Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 10:15:53 -0400
From: Alex Leith alexl@compuserve.com
To: Peter Ruhrberg pruhrberg.at@cityweb.de, alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: David Gorman -- experiences in lessons

Peter Ruhrberg wrote:
"Is this a valuable contribution to the list?"

Yes it certainly is. I'm not a teacher, but have had AT lessons from many different teachers. It's very interesting to hear what is going on from the teacher's end.

Alex


Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 10:16:24 -0400
From: Alex Leith alexl@compuserve.com
To: alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Objective Reality

Buddhist teachers stress the importance of remaining aware of the distinction between Relative and Absolute.

In relative terms, of course objective reality exists. This keyboard is solid and makes a clicking sound. Still in relative terms, but at a rather deeper level of analysis, the world of phenomenal appearance that appears to surround the apparent observer "I", is the result of extremely complex interactions between elements in the mind stream.

In absolute terms, one has to say that objective reality neither exists nor not-exists. Likewise the apparent observer, apparently separate from the observed reality, is part of the same complex.

Of course the absolute is beyond words, so we come up against these paradoxes. We shouldn't really try to say anything at all about the absolute. Buddist teachers do try to nudge us as close to it as possible, as a constant reminder that we ought not to be seduced into thinking (as we do all the time, or very nearly) that phenomenal reality has INHERENT real existence -- that is, existence of itself alone rather than as a product of interdependency.

One very high lama has been quoted by one of his students, a lama himself, as leaning over and saying confidentially, "Of course you know, all these things go away."

Alex


Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 17:13:19 EDT
From: JohnC10303@aol.com
To: 100653.2057@compuserve.com, alextech@life.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: final exercise in futility

Hello list: and, for one last time, David

The quote you pulled at the beginning of your post still says all I need to say on the original matter of this interminable exchange: "I am not arguing that David Gorman's new vein of work is uninteresting or valueless. I am questioning whether he has any justification in founding a new sect on the basis of his current emphasis."

For the rest of this post I will go through last post, answering points as I go. For those following this from the sidelines, if your read the two posts in parallel you should be able to follow me.

Ah David, there is no question that your original post implied some special new discovery. I feel no personal threat from your postings. I do feel that discourse between Alexander teachers is stuck at a very low level, and that your postings have not improved things.

You stated in no uncertain terms that those who questioned you were unqualified to do so without demonstration, while claiming (and continuing to claim) validation from the support of those who did not question you. I have received several notes from other teachers concurring with my opinions. As of yet, they have not posted to the entire list. I cannot blame them for being reluctant to expose themselves to your condescension.

You claimed that the entire community of Alexander teachers, beginning with FM, had missed the boat, and that your new discovery rendered our work reduntant.

You only solicited opinions AFTER you had commited yourself to a new 'system' founded entirely on your own authority with no outside check. I have not even hazarded an opinion as to whether your purpose in this was driven by financial or personal ambition. If that does not qualify for words like 'sect,' I don't know what does.

You have taken ideas from Alexander's books, restated them in wishy-washy New Age babble and claimed them to be original with you.

You have dodged contrary argument by repeating yourself and deflected discussion away from the issues at hand by indulging in E-mail psychoanalysis.

I have expressed no opinion of your work as such in this entire exchange. Having never met you, I began this exchange with no opinion of your personality or character. I have since formed one, but it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this exchange.

For some time now, I have had to assume that you are impervious to argument. I have no hope of leading you to alter your opinions. I am concerned that others reading this list may be persuaded to agree with your self estimation.

While it is good of you to recognise the extent to which your professional activities are based on your personal opinions, why did you solicit the opinions of this list's readers if you are; "not asking anyone to agree with me." Why have you taken up so much space on this list if: "Personally, I do not care if anyone does or does not [agree]. I do not have to justify to anyone starting a new work under a different name."

I HAVE discussed the validity of the Alexander technique with the uninitiated, though not on this list. It is not difficult to justify the Technique to anyone who will listen and ask reasoned questions.

Yours in mellow holisticity
John Coffin

P.S. I will answer your questions in re 'sloucher' within a few days.


Continued in PART 9...

go to NEXT part    go back to PREVIOUS part    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.