Feldenkrais and some of his thoughts.

**nari** · 29-07-2005, 12:18 PM

Hi all

I have been doing some homework on Feldenkrais, to have a good mindset for the Sept course.
His book "Awareness Through Movement" I have had for years, but never took much notice of it. The copy I have was published in 1972.
In the preface he makes some statements which, 30 years later, ring true.

"We act in accordance with our self image. This self image - which in turn, governs our every act - is conditioned in varying degrees by three factors:
heritage, education and self-education.

.."Self education alone is to some extent in our own hands. Our physical inheritance comes to us unsolicited, education is forced upon us, and even self-education is not entirely volitional in the early years; it is decided by the relative strength of inherited personality, individual characteristics, the effective working of the nervous system, and by the severity and persistence of educational influences. Heritage makes each one of us a unique individual in physical structure, appearance and actions. Education makes each of us a member of some definite human society and seeks to make us as like every other member of that society as possible. Society dictates our mode of dress and thereby makes our appearance similar to that of others. By giving us a language, it makes us express ourselves in the same way as others. It instills a pattern of behaviour and values in us and sees to it that our self-education shall also operate so as to make us wishto become like everyone else. (my italics)

"The education provided by society operates in two directions at once. It suppresses every nonconformist tendency through penalties of withdrawal of support and simultaneously imbues the individual with values taht force him to overcome and discard spontaneous desires. These conditions cause the majority of adults living today to live behind a mask, a mask of personality that the individual tries to present to others and to himself.
Every aspiration and spontaneous desire is subject to stringent internal criticism lest they reveal the individual's organic nature. Such aspirations and desires arouse anxiety and remorse and the individual seeks to suppress the urge to realise them. The need for constant support by one's fellows is so great that most people spend the larger part of their lives fortifying their masks......often enough the individual becomes so adjusted to his mask...that he no longer senses any organic drive or satisfaction."
(my italics)

Feldenkrais then goes on to say that every system in the body is linked and all are involved in any action or thought; that the brain and body are as one. Our loss of identity through society's demands on us results in loss of awareness of our selves as functional beings. he seeks to address this loss through what he calls minimal movement to perform an act, rather than agonists and antagonists acting together and unnecessarily fatigiung the systems.

His writing makes a lot more sense now, in the light of the recent knowledge of pain physiology and neurofunction.

What do others think?

Nari

**christophb** · 29-07-2005, 08:41 PM

I just read an interesting book called The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz, He has some interesting perspectives on conditioning by "civilized" societies. It was a little easier read the Moshe, i'm kind of dim :lol:

Chris

**nari** · 30-07-2005, 08:22 AM

Bernard
As a neuronut I will find a reason for neurophysiological thinking anywhere..except perhaps geology.

Chris

I'm finding Moshe's book very easy going...and it makes so much sense.
But then as Bernard informs me often...I am a neuronut.
Do you have a copy of the "Awareness of Movement"?

The Ruiz book sounds good. Does it say that the First World countries do more brainwashing than, say, the Third World with a tighter and more hidebound structure? (mostly)

Nari

**bernard** · 30-07-2005, 09:29 AM

Here is a link to the book and appreciations =>

http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184

pablo · 30-07-2005, 11:29 AM

Hi Nari,

Is it minimal movement to perform an act, or minimal effort?

My understanding of the body schema is a little bit different to:

"We act in accordance with our self image. This self image - which in turn, governs our every act - is conditioned in varying degrees by three factors:
heritage, education and self-education."

The body schema (the conscious perception of the physical body) appears to be a product of parietal lobe function. It is highly plastic, as demostrated by numerous experiments of altered sensation (eg lengthening nose illusion mentioned in Ramachandran's writings, altering phantom sensations via visual input), and when altered can have effects on motor output and perception of symptoms. I suspect it is this that Servaas Mes taps into in his "somatic conditioning" or "somatic moments" as he call them.

Having a good handle on the concept of a Neuromatrix can help make a lot more sense of how this is all interconnected. The other two paragraphs you quoted from Feldenkreis's book make sense, but seem to be deeply imbued with pop-psychology of the time. I think we need to go deeper than that, and find the biological roots of what he is saying, rather than simply accept it because it seems to make sense. I think you are in a very good position to be able to do some of that.

Pablo

**nari** · 31-07-2005, 02:59 AM

Hello Pablo

If something makes sense, it does not follow that it is acceptable; only that the meaning of the writing is interpreted better, and maybe put away for future extrapolation.

The Feldenkrais workshop I attended in the 1990s did not really go into the biological roots because they weren't known then. But with regard to minimum movement vs minimum effort, I would have thought the two were comparable in effect. Certainly the practice session was useful in that it did create a feeling of effective and effortless movement; but whether this can be achieved by other means as rapidly, I don't know.

What is the pop psychology of that period that you think Feldenkrais is operating with? That type of psychological thinking was certainly thriving from the 70s on, but prior to that I don't know.

Enlighten me!!

Nari

pablo · 31-07-2005, 05:22 AM

Probably a poor choice of words on my part. I wasn't old enough in the 70's to adequatley comment on the psychology of the day, so I have to qualify that what I'm saying is an assumption on my part about the frame of reference that would have been used. I mean with respect to education and language that you quoted.

"Society dictates our mode of dress and thereby makes our appearance similar to that of others. By giving us a language, it makes us express ourselves in the same way as others."

This seems to imply that socity gives us language. I'm thinking of language as more than a product of sociey, rather an evolutionary tool which makes social interaction more complex than in other primates, for example. I also think of language as being closely related to consciousness and individual narratives.

"Every aspiration and spontaneous desire is subject to stringent internal criticism lest they reveal the individual's organic nature. Such aspirations and desires arouse anxiety and remorse and the individual seeks to suppress the urge to realise them. The need for constant support by one's fellows is so great that most people spend the larger part of their lives fortifying their masks......often enough the individual becomes so adjusted to his mask...that he no longer senses any organic drive or satisfaction." "

What is an individual's "organic nature"? I'm having trouble understanding the whole context here. It's kind of saying that "aspirations and desires" (what would these be, exactly?) are vetoed by some neural process. This much I understand, and is part of normal, functional human behaviour, where certiain behaviours are allowed and others not depending on the social context. It would be OK to wear a swimsuit at the beach, but not at work when one's work is in a factory, for example. I guess I interpreted what he's saying as "society's rules are the cause of all evil" and "you can ignore them and you'll be happier". Be what you want to be yeah. Join a hippie commune, that sort of thing.

It's quite likely that I've taken all of this out of context, as I haven't read the whole book. It's probably just a description of how Feldenkreis saw things, without the negative judgement I seem to be reading into it.

I totally agree with you when you say "If something makes sense, it does not follow that it is acceptable; only that the meaning of the writing is interpreted better, and maybe put away for future extrapolation."

We are (I think) in a priviledged situation, where we do have a broader understanding of the biological roots of all this, and I think we should try to link the two together. Biology and psychology talking to each other more and more, that would be interesting. Then take the next level of complexity and see how it fits into the level of societies. OK, now I'm getting lost in my own head. What I'm saying is, what would Feldenkreis's writing look like if it was written in a language which takes into account the last 30 years of accumulated knowledge about human movement, pain, human psychology, etc? I'm talking of the equivalent for current times. I have a feeling Feldenkreis would have adapted his thinking to encompass new findings.

The concept of minimal movement versus minimal effort is a tricky one. At uniersity we learned that a skilled performer was more efficient than a novice, even when the two were performing the same task and it looked much the same. This is normal skill acqusition stuff, nothing new here. Was he then talking about becoming more skilled at movement through practice? I've not attended any workshops, not yet anyway, so I can't give you my impression.

I don't think I'm managing to enlighten anyone today!

I hope to catch you before you go to Barrett's workshop, perhaps throw some good local wine in (it seems to work for Lorimer and David!).

Pablo

**nari** · 31-07-2005, 05:53 AM

I think I know what you're saying.

I agree that Moshe F chose the word 'giving' rather inaccurately in reference to society's endowments. That is more through naivety I suspect.

'organic nature'? Yes, that sounds weird, too. But written in the context, perhaps of the pre-70s, not surprising. I presume he refers to what we really want to do with our lives, rather than be dictated by society's rules.
Society imposes rules to enable some sort of cohesiveness and to temper instincts that may be damaging to self or the community; I think Feldenkrais feels this has spin-offs in the direction of loss of identity and therefore, reduced functional efficiency. Now I'm getting lost...

Yes, he was talking about increasing movement skills through efficient and selective muscle recruitment (modern day lingo) rather than bringing everything in, particularly, I suspect, if momentum is poor, and planning is poor as well. From what I recall of the workshop, the simple act of raising one arm and the contralateral leg in lying was one thing done spontaneously x 1, and with increased awareness became a quite different sensation..so easy and fluid.

Re the wine...there is a 1.5l limit on taking it into Canada, so we won't get too carried away, but sounds a good idea. Certainly on the Friday night we will probably be celebrating one way or the other, and we'll think of you on your birthday!

Email me sometime about catching up.

Nari

pablo · 31-07-2005, 08:22 AM

It's interesting, isn't it, how quickly the perceived effort of a movement can change. Even just focusing one's attention to a particular body part will change how it feels, and how it feels to move. Playing sport, and even at work I guess, there are moments when everything seems effortless and performance is enhanced, "the zone". I wonder if there any parallels? Slight change of topic, I guess, but I think they are related.

Pablo

**Diane** · 31-07-2005, 04:01 PM

Interesting conversation guys!
Pablo, you mentioned,

Quote:

"Society dictates our mode of dress and thereby makes our appearance similar to that of others. By giving us a language, it makes us express ourselves in the same way as others."

This seems to imply that socity gives us language. I'm thinking of language as more than a product of sociey, rather an evolutionary tool which makes social interaction more complex than in other primates, for example. I also think of language as being closely related to consciousness and individual narratives.

I read somewhere (Damasio?) that language IS a form of movement. I also read (terrible time keeping track of things I read) that reading language activates the motor parts of the brain even in the absence of sound..

I never thought much about the impact language has on the brain until I tried learning another besides English, Spanish in fact, at age 35. I had enough distance from my own learning facilities and was already so entrenched in English speaking ways of being that I could (sort of) intuit the terrain involved and how different it felt from the familiar terrain.

An example:
The tendency of Spanish writers to use a whole paragraph to set up all the adjectives and mood of a single sentence, and wait until the very last line to finally get to the verb. In English, the first sentence is supposed to be short and carry the meaning of the whole paragraph, and all else following in the paragraph refers to that first sentence.

Another:
Reflexive verbs (more pertinent to this conversation maybe) to do with the body. In Spanish you don't say, "My arm hurts", instead you say, "The arm hurts me." There is a definite boundary established in the language, therefore, between "the body" and "me". The body hurts me. Not even My body hurts me. If you like the taste of something, there is no "Mmm, I like this food", instead there is "Mmmm, this food pleases me." Subject and object are, in lots of ways, more clearly defined and the object (the body or the food or whatever,) acts on the less tangible subject, I. I don't know why, but in English the subject "I" is made to be the operator and the objects are out there being operated on.

Another: Everything in Spanish is either masculine or feminine. This jolted my brain a lot. Drove me crazy at first, to call a plate la and a hand la, and water el, and an arm el. Later I started to get that it wasn't inherent sexism in the same way English is; English is supposedly neutral, except for actual sexually differentiated live beings, however it is terribly sexist in that the whole construct of the language is built, for example, to include all people and groups under the term 'mankind'. (There are lots of these sorts of traps in English that serve to encourage females to feel invisible.)

Thus, (Diane takes a deep breath and gets to her point) language can modify senses of self and dig large grooves in the brain that vary from culture to culture enormously, which dig seriously different grooves in the brain from childhood, affecting sense of self, individual narrative, all those things you said Pablo, including sense of being able to or free to move. I think it's true in that sense that society "gives" us language whether we want the one we're born with or not. Hopefully our parents have the opportunity to expose us from birth to several different languages so that our brains become adept at choosing varying strategies of self. So I don't see any discrepancy between what Feldenkrais said and what you say.

Diane

**nari** · 01-08-2005, 12:28 AM

Chris

Liked your further explanation of this guy's 'dreams'. I'm tending to find that link between him and Barrett becoming clearer; then I want to link between Barrett, Rocobado, Mennell, Bobath et al.

Why do I paint myself into esoteric corners? Because it's fun and I am probably a frustrated psychologist; I have suspected that for years. In some ways, then, I am 'constrained' by physiotherapy and its strict borders, it is not really 'me', whoever me is.

Cheers

Nari

pablo · 01-08-2005, 01:53 AM

Hi Diane,

I have no doubt that language influneces the way we think, and that through different languages people have different ways of looking at the world. I was fortunate to learn Spanish as a kid (growing up in Argentina) and Polish also (long story). There are still concepts in English which are strange to me. Some thing which I understand from an academic perspective but which don't make sense in terms of the language that's used. Sometimes I think in Spanish, although I suspect less and less.

Hopefully one day I'll look into the langauge thing a bit more.

Just to complicate things:

At the Australian Pain Society meeting last year, one of the presenters looked at the similarities between brains and language. The main point was this, that language was a product of the brain, and thus limited in its scope to make sense of the world. The human brain does not have infinite power, and there are things it cannot do. So there are things language cannot do. One of these things might be describing the uninverse, or describing pain. He then made an interesting parallel between this and Eastern philosophy, in which there is the cocept of the "tao" or way, or universe I guess. They have a saying that goes something like this: "the tao of which we speak is not the true tao", meaning that it is only part of a bigger whole. When describing the universe in scientfic terms, this is what happens, that we only have the capacity to describe parts of it at a time and not really appreciate the whole. Maybe it can't be done because of the limits imposed by the structure of the brain and thus its product.

Is anyone as confused as I am?

Great topic, though!

Pablo

**nari** · 01-08-2005, 02:43 AM

True.

We tend to think, I guess naturally, that if something is 'out there' but we can see or understand only a part of it, it either goads us on (as physicists and astronomers and microbiologists) or we become distracted by other things that are more 'whole' in our perception.
But the difficulty is, for mere mortals and not esoteric academics, that if our brains cannot determine the nature of something, then we assume it may not or does not exist, because it defies the second law of thermodynamics or whatever.

That is our shortfall in thinking across the broad spectrum. Understanding something is only limited by our willingness and cortical ability to 'see' it.

Nari

**nari** · 01-08-2005, 07:37 AM

Pablo

Yes, I am confused too, after doing a search and not finding much of mind-grabbing interest that is fairly recent.

Simon Conway Morris with all his theories on the principle of convergence, does not even squeak about language, which is surprising given that he explores almost everything else in great detail, from invertebrates to homo sapiens. Susan Greenfield talks about the linked areas in the brain for spoken, visualised and heard words, and there is even a separate section for generation of verbs(?) but she does not go beyond that.
I wonder if dolphins have similar links, given their language is becoming more and more identifiable........

Nari

**nari** · 08-08-2005, 07:54 AM

Now you're sounding a bit existentialist, Bernard..

I think society confines most of us much more than we think. People go on a holiday to a beach or resort, and often their eczema, pain, depression improves greatly. Then they return and often the problems reappear. The reason is still considered as 'climate change' or 'relaxation', but it goes deeper than that. I think so anyway..

What happens in a city/town? We obey road rules, park where we are 'told' to park, work under rules, dress according to current fashion, eat according to current fashion; watch TV because it is thrust at us; (well, there is a choice, but it is still invasive); admire art works that we would not have in our house in a fit, because it is the 'done thing'; keep immaculate houses because someone said germs are bad for us and a house needs to look like the inside of a display home; and so on.....

There. I feel better now.

Nari

**nari** · 13-08-2005, 07:45 AM

Bernard
re your last sentence I reply: Why not?
Neuronuts are in as much danger of painting themselves into deep holes as anyone else, including the musclenuts and jointnuts.
I keep thinking that one day all of this brain/body stuff will all sort itself out..at the risk of thinking that there is one solution to the theory of everything..

Nari

**bernard** · 17-08-2005, 05:24 PM

Hi SomaSimplers,
I found these lines about some Feldenkrais thoughts =>

Quote:

Body and Self-Image
We know that the optimal trajectory of motor development in children, the one closest to the several million years of human evolution, is broad, exploratory, and open-ended. This is very different from what happens in contemporary, industrialized, urbanized culture. Infants and children are pressured to develop faster than their natural pace, and motor learning is often incomplete or already contains elements of effort and tension associated with pleasing parents' expectations. The effects of these imbalances may not appear as motor system dysfunction or discomfort for many years. But by the time we are in our late thirties or forties, most of us have begun to feel the effects of all these years of misuse as chronic or recurring discomforts in our muscles and joints.

Faulty posture usually originates in childhood with extraneous, excessive, and conflicting muscular tensions around issues of dependence and insecurity. Our psychological and emotional histories manifest outwardly in the world in the ways we stand, move, feel, express, respond, and create. Our habitual tensions reflect our childhood defenses against being shamed, punished, abused, ignored, or abandoned.

Incomplete learning, self-criticism, and emotional defenses inevitably take us even further from the balance, ease, and grace which are the real hallmarks of both good posture and balanced living; compensation is not correction. Over the years these early imbalances are exacerbated by emotional stress, physical injuries, disease processes, and distorted self-images. Our bodies become prisons of a sort, seemingly with minds of their own.

Neurosis is the inevitable result of conflict between irreconcilable inner imperatives. Stuck between opposites, we manifest these conflicts as patterns of muscular tension that interfere with movement, breath, and basic bodily functions, and as dysfunctional, incongruent, and often compulsive behavior.

**nari** · 18-08-2005, 12:06 AM

I think that Feldenkrais has been shown to be correct, at least partly, in his portrayal of somatic expression. But is is hard to 'prove' and therefore there are many PTs who do not support the idea of cultural expectations or trauma affecting one's physical presentation. There is still a lot of Cartesian-type thinking out there; separating body from brain.

Thanks Bernard.

Nari

**bernard** · 18-08-2005, 07:05 AM

Nari,

Do you really think that societies are able to accept their rules create illness or problems in citizens?

Is it really possible to suppose/accept that mood has no effect on health?

**nari** · 18-08-2005, 09:44 AM

Bernard

Do you mean society would accept that its rules cause problems in health? Not in this age and times. People complain about the environment, car fumes, air conditioning etc etc but they accept it because it affects their lifestyle if there are radical changes. The effects on long term health are also more insidious..like fluroscent lighting!!
We are our own worst enemy;the 'good old days' of no antibiotics, etc meant healthier living (we weren't stuffed with drugs with a cold)but a short lifespan if seriously ill! Today we survive longer, but under what sort of conditions?

Nari

**bernard** · 18-08-2005, 10:08 AM

Nari,

I believe that Society is unable to accept its faulty behaviour bacause it will automatically involve a definite failure in social/health insurances.

This kind of "restricting" view about consequences created by ourselves is the best way to find elsewhere a faulty guy!
We are actually blaming genes, world wide trading... But a truth is closer than that?

I think it's why the "alternative" techniques have some hard to convince (Hanna, Feldenkreis, Tai-Chi, Neurodynamics(?),..). They can't be acepted by governments and their peoples.

**Diane** · 18-08-2005, 10:56 AM

I think we live in a great time. Unless we happen to be in a country that is at war. (There's been a lot of war in the past century, and the century we are in, with massive death.) Aside from that, general public health has never been better. We've never lived longer, never had a higher chance to have our natural teeth present for our demise. (In Canada) we can relax about the high cost of hospitalization... it's covered by taxes.

We've pretty much eliminated communicable disease as a cause of death, with the noteable exception of aids. Poverty is the biggest killer now, and degenerative disease. Awfully low chance of dying from childbirth, or because your neighbour decides he wants your land and comes over with a big spear to poke you in the abs. Low chance of dying from a burst appendix. Low chance of dying from malnutrition because the harvest failed (except Africa for impoverishment reasons.) Much greater ease of travel and communication.

I would rather have been born now than at any other time in history or prehistory, frankly. We have the luxury of feeling depressed about our favorite treatment approach not being embraced by our society which is busy keeping the roads repaired and the free public drinking water safe. Makes me feel grateful.
Diane

**bernard** · 18-08-2005, 11:46 AM

Well,

That's give 1 for Diane and 2 for the opponents!

It merely depends on the mood of the day.

**nari** · 18-08-2005, 12:48 PM

Bernard, I don't think I am an opponent to modern day living, although it may have come over that way, as I have had a vile cold/flu/whatever for nearly two weeks and boy, does it whack one's good feelings around!! But I do have concerns over development, money crazed bureaucracy and excess population..

Diane, you are right, and we are lucky to each live in a country with very good health services (and living conditions) for relatively small outlay or none at all. At the time that Feldenkrais was writing, things were no doubt different. I notice that Lonely Planet praises the Canadian health system, and it is an Aussie-based travel publication.

I wonder what Moshe meant by neurosis....navel gazing, lack of motivation, irrational fears...? It is another word that is slowly going out of fashion, fortunately. Along with quite a few others as well; such as neuralgia and dropsy...though dropsy has a grandly graphic sound about it.

Nari

**bernard** · 18-08-2005, 12:54 PM

Nari,

Was kiddin'

All progress brings some marvel and misery at the same time.
Nothing is perfect (surely Man!

)

**bernard** · 18-08-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nari

as I have had a vile cold/flu/whatever for nearly two weeks

Just stop your evil habit!

**nari** · 18-08-2005, 10:25 PM

Bernard

What??????

Nari

**flaviovitor** · 19-08-2005, 01:04 AM

Hi my favourite experts (I'm learning so much with you!!!),

questions:

Is there better 'exercise therapies' (such motor control therapy from physiotherapy from those guys: Jull, Hides, Hodges, Richardson, McGill, etc, etc, etc) than Feldenkrais, to provide / re-acquire quality in movement?
Is there better 'exercise (physio)therapy' to reeducate faulty patterns of movement than Feldenkrais?
Is there better 'exercise (physio)therapy' in the long-term to enhance such a things than Feldenkrais?
Is Feldenkrais an old therapy or is it current?
Is Feldenkrais 'practical' or is it difficult to apply?
Opinions / ideas only ?

Cheers,

Flávio.

**nari** · 19-08-2005, 01:57 AM

Flavio

These questions are very difficult to answer!

I can't really say if there are superior methods, because I don't know. I doubt if anyone has shown that a particular Feldenkrais method produces consistently better results than other methods. It would be impossible to determine, with so many variables. It could be argued, I guess, that Feldenkrais places a great deal of emphasis on awareness training...but so does Alexander (of the A. technique) and Hanna. These may well have an advantage over putting someone on a treadmill or a bike for twenty minutes - but I don't know.
Neurodynamics does educate a patient in awareness, but probably not as consciously as Feldenkrais does.
Maybe Bernard and Diane can offer further opinions.

Nari

**bernard** · 19-08-2005, 06:48 AM

Nari,
evil habit = smoking?

Flavio,

Forget the exercises technique thing. Feldenkrais, Hanna, Alexander, Rolfing... are movement therapies not just exercises. They incorporate more than simple exercises. These methods/technique are intended as global because they pay attention to breathing and "harmony"/smoothness of movement. So doesn't the other that are more local and sometimes out of the "natural" trajectories of joints. But you may find some good "pieces" of work in all ones.
Yes, because Feldenkrais was a pionneer and had students and followers: Hanna with his Somatics... But Alexander and all methods that incorporate a mind/body connection may work.
Actually, I do not think so. But You may achieve a fabulous job with a little Tai-Chi. They work because they are simply more "global".
Old, but it resists. (In my view, it is too complicated!)
Ditto 4. Hanna Somatics is easier and more complete and Tai-Chi (pure ). Feldenkrais wasn't intended to cure but to ameliorate the body mechanics.
All these methods are/incorporate/involve neuro dynamics.

**nari** · 19-08-2005, 08:13 AM

Bernard

Since when did you know of my evil habit??

**bernard** · 19-08-2005, 08:37 AM

Diane sold it out, in a thread!

**nari** · 19-08-2005, 09:17 AM

Good grief. Must have slipped a cog. But I am very well behaved with fags, and if I don't have 'em. don't miss 'em. Like a few other things in life....

Nari

**flaviovitor** · 19-08-2005, 04:06 PM

Nari, thank you!

Bernard, thank you!

"Forget the exercises technique thing. Feldenkrais, Hanna, Alexander, Rolfing... are movement therapies not just exercises." It is good to know your neural / body / mind 'philosophy'. The more I visit SomaSimple, more I feel like a real apprentice of yours.

So, to keep the winnings (better movement quality), global movement approaches are better? But, motor control / stability retraining / muscle imbalance (http://www.kineticcontrol.com/course...php?country=UK or http://www.performance-stability.com...ness/index.php for example) do adopt breathing during functional activities and funcional movements, with a bit of consciousness / awareness ('pay attention Mr. patient' / 'learn with your own effort' / learn to be smoother in your tasks')

!!! Just the same as Feldenkrais! With the difference perhaps, of being less global

???

Cheers,

Flávio.

**bernard** · 19-08-2005, 04:48 PM

Hello Flavio,

The first link provides some good things since there is some work of Michael Schaklock (hope I spelled it well) Clinical Neurodynamics: A New Practical System for the Treatment of Neuromusculoskeletal Disorders.

I'm not sure, BTW, that SomaSimplers and NeuroNuts are on the side of core stability!

Core stability is far from Feldenkrais... and far from good abdominal breathing!

**flaviovitor** · 19-08-2005, 05:51 PM

Hello Bernard,

I have the course (assisted in 2005) of and with MICHAEL SHACKLOCK. But, if even in the physical examination of 3a, 3b, 3c and/or 3d it does not exist any neural component / contribution to pain experience, why to apply this method (both neural gliding and tensioning?). Let me become a whole neuronut too, just as your are?!

Why neuronuts do not 'think of' reestablishing normal, good or better motor control patterns? It could exist less one physical component / contribuiton to provoke brain, and maybe, to create pain. Although (I recognize it) not always physical things contribute to pain...

Flávio.

**nari** · 19-08-2005, 10:56 PM

Flavio

The blend of motor control and more global applications is a good question. I have had patients who had no 'core stability' (ie poor Trans Ab, etc) and they became very good at recruiting TA and the rest - but it did not really change their pain experience. These were, admittedly, persistent pain people, with complex issues; and having that 'control' is a good thing (according to the experts) but I am not convinced of its real value.
I think both approaches are needed - specific and global. If training TA does relieve their pain, well and good. It does not work for all spinal pain, and going 'global' may be the answer.

Nari

**bernard** · 20-08-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavio

But, if even in the physical examination of 3a, 3b, 3c and/or 3d

Where do you found these 3'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavio

Why neuronuts do not 'think of' reestablishing normal, good or better motor control patterns?

I think that we are doing it since a movement that is made pain free is certainly better than the previous painful one. But I agree that "strict", "orthodox" neuronuts have replaced bones eand joints by nerves. It may be not sufficient.

**flaviovitor** · 21-08-2005, 04:57 PM

Thanks for replying Nari.

Bernard, 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d, are part of diagnostic and treatment evolution by Michael Shacklock. He teaches in his course and it is just in his book (CLINICAL NEURODYNAMICS)

?!

I myself, think it could be considered a good question (in the light of neurodynamic knowledge), since these tests look for any dysfunction on nerves... their pathodynamics!!!

Flávio Vitor.

29-07-2005, 12:18 PM	#1
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Feldenkrais and some of his thoughts. Hi all I have been doing some homework on Feldenkrais, to have a good mindset for the Sept course. His book "Awareness Through Movement" I have had for years, but never took much notice of it. The copy I have was published in 1972. In the preface he makes some statements which, 30 years later, ring true. "We act in accordance with our self image. This self image - which in turn, governs our every act - is conditioned in varying degrees by three factors: heritage, education and self-education. .."Self education alone is to some extent in our own hands. Our physical inheritance comes to us unsolicited, education is forced upon us, and even self-education is not entirely volitional in the early years; it is decided by the relative strength of inherited personality, individual characteristics, the effective working of the nervous system, and by the severity and persistence of educational influences. Heritage makes each one of us a unique individual in physical structure, appearance and actions. Education makes each of us a member of some definite human society and seeks to make us as like every other member of that society as possible. Society dictates our mode of dress and thereby makes our appearance similar to that of others. By giving us a language, it makes us express ourselves in the same way as others. It instills a pattern of behaviour and values in us and sees to it that our self-education shall also operate so as to make us wishto become like everyone else. (my italics) "The education provided by society operates in two directions at once. It suppresses every nonconformist tendency through penalties of withdrawal of support and simultaneously imbues the individual with values taht force him to overcome and discard spontaneous desires. These conditions cause the majority of adults living today to live behind a mask, a mask of personality that the individual tries to present to others and to himself. Every aspiration and spontaneous desire is subject to stringent internal criticism lest they reveal the individual's organic nature. Such aspirations and desires arouse anxiety and remorse and the individual seeks to suppress the urge to realise them. The need for constant support by one's fellows is so great that most people spend the larger part of their lives fortifying their masks......often enough the individual becomes so adjusted to his mask...that he no longer senses any organic drive or satisfaction." (my italics) Feldenkrais then goes on to say that every system in the body is linked and all are involved in any action or thought; that the brain and body are as one. Our loss of identity through society's demands on us results in loss of awareness of our selves as functional beings. he seeks to address this loss through what he calls minimal movement to perform an act, rather than agonists and antagonists acting together and unnecessarily fatigiung the systems. His writing makes a lot more sense now, in the light of the recent knowledge of pain physiology and neurofunction. What do others think? Nari

30-07-2005, 09:29 AM	#4
bernard Admin, Moderator... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: France Age: 56 Posts: 12,013 Thanks: 241 Thanked 135 Times in 89 Posts	Here is a link to the book and appreciations => http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184 __________________ Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein bernard Last edited by bernard; 05-08-2005 at 04:31 PM.

18-08-2005, 07:05 AM	#19
bernard Admin, Moderator... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: France Age: 56 Posts: 12,013 Thanks: 241 Thanked 135 Times in 89 Posts	Nari, Do you really think that societies are able to accept their rules create illness or problems in citizens? Is it really possible to suppose/accept that mood has no effect on health? __________________ Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein bernard

18-08-2005, 09:44 AM	#20
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Bernard Do you mean society would accept that its rules cause problems in health? Not in this age and times. People complain about the environment, car fumes, air conditioning etc etc but they accept it because it affects their lifestyle if there are radical changes. The effects on long term health are also more insidious..like fluroscent lighting!! We are our own worst enemy;the 'good old days' of no antibiotics, etc meant healthier living (we weren't stuffed with drugs with a cold)but a short lifespan if seriously ill! Today we survive longer, but under what sort of conditions? Nari Last edited by nari; 18-08-2005 at 09:46 AM.

18-08-2005, 10:08 AM	#21
bernard Admin, Moderator... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: France Age: 56 Posts: 12,013 Thanks: 241 Thanked 135 Times in 89 Posts	Nari, I believe that Society is unable to accept its faulty behaviour bacause it will automatically involve a definite failure in social/health insurances. This kind of "restricting" view about consequences created by ourselves is the best way to find elsewhere a faulty guy! We are actually blaming genes, world wide trading... But a truth is closer than that? I think it's why the "alternative" techniques have some hard to convince (Hanna, Feldenkreis, Tai-Chi, Neurodynamics(?),..). They can't be acepted by governments and their peoples. __________________ Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein bernard

29-07-2005, 08:41 PM	#2
christophb Arbiter Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Seattle, WA Age: 39 Posts: 683 Thanks: 2 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	I just read an interesting book called The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz, He has some interesting perspectives on conditioning by "civilized" societies. It was a little easier read the Moshe, i'm kind of dim :lol: Chris

30-07-2005, 08:22 AM	#3
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Bernard As a neuronut I will find a reason for neurophysiological thinking anywhere..except perhaps geology. Chris I'm finding Moshe's book very easy going...and it makes so much sense. But then as Bernard informs me often...I am a neuronut. Do you have a copy of the "Awareness of Movement"? The Ruiz book sounds good. Does it say that the First World countries do more brainwashing than, say, the Third World with a tighter and more hidebound structure? (mostly) Nari

30-07-2005, 11:29 AM	#5
pablo Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 40 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hi Nari, Is it minimal movement to perform an act, or minimal effort? My understanding of the body schema is a little bit different to: "We act in accordance with our self image. This self image - which in turn, governs our every act - is conditioned in varying degrees by three factors: heritage, education and self-education." The body schema (the conscious perception of the physical body) appears to be a product of parietal lobe function. It is highly plastic, as demostrated by numerous experiments of altered sensation (eg lengthening nose illusion mentioned in Ramachandran's writings, altering phantom sensations via visual input), and when altered can have effects on motor output and perception of symptoms. I suspect it is this that Servaas Mes taps into in his "somatic conditioning" or "somatic moments" as he call them. Having a good handle on the concept of a Neuromatrix can help make a lot more sense of how this is all interconnected. The other two paragraphs you quoted from Feldenkreis's book make sense, but seem to be deeply imbued with pop-psychology of the time. I think we need to go deeper than that, and find the biological roots of what he is saying, rather than simply accept it because it seems to make sense. I think you are in a very good position to be able to do some of that. Pablo

31-07-2005, 02:59 AM	#6
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Hello Pablo If something makes sense, it does not follow that it is acceptable; only that the meaning of the writing is interpreted better, and maybe put away for future extrapolation. The Feldenkrais workshop I attended in the 1990s did not really go into the biological roots because they weren't known then. But with regard to minimum movement vs minimum effort, I would have thought the two were comparable in effect. Certainly the practice session was useful in that it did create a feeling of effective and effortless movement; but whether this can be achieved by other means as rapidly, I don't know. What is the pop psychology of that period that you think Feldenkrais is operating with? That type of psychological thinking was certainly thriving from the 70s on, but prior to that I don't know. Enlighten me!! Nari

31-07-2005, 05:22 AM	#7
pablo Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 40 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Probably a poor choice of words on my part. I wasn't old enough in the 70's to adequatley comment on the psychology of the day, so I have to qualify that what I'm saying is an assumption on my part about the frame of reference that would have been used. I mean with respect to education and language that you quoted. "Society dictates our mode of dress and thereby makes our appearance similar to that of others. By giving us a language, it makes us express ourselves in the same way as others." This seems to imply that socity gives us language. I'm thinking of language as more than a product of sociey, rather an evolutionary tool which makes social interaction more complex than in other primates, for example. I also think of language as being closely related to consciousness and individual narratives. "Every aspiration and spontaneous desire is subject to stringent internal criticism lest they reveal the individual's organic nature. Such aspirations and desires arouse anxiety and remorse and the individual seeks to suppress the urge to realise them. The need for constant support by one's fellows is so great that most people spend the larger part of their lives fortifying their masks......often enough the individual becomes so adjusted to his mask...that he no longer senses any organic drive or satisfaction." " What is an individual's "organic nature"? I'm having trouble understanding the whole context here. It's kind of saying that "aspirations and desires" (what would these be, exactly?) are vetoed by some neural process. This much I understand, and is part of normal, functional human behaviour, where certiain behaviours are allowed and others not depending on the social context. It would be OK to wear a swimsuit at the beach, but not at work when one's work is in a factory, for example. I guess I interpreted what he's saying as "society's rules are the cause of all evil" and "you can ignore them and you'll be happier". Be what you want to be yeah. Join a hippie commune, that sort of thing. It's quite likely that I've taken all of this out of context, as I haven't read the whole book. It's probably just a description of how Feldenkreis saw things, without the negative judgement I seem to be reading into it. I totally agree with you when you say "If something makes sense, it does not follow that it is acceptable; only that the meaning of the writing is interpreted better, and maybe put away for future extrapolation." We are (I think) in a priviledged situation, where we do have a broader understanding of the biological roots of all this, and I think we should try to link the two together. Biology and psychology talking to each other more and more, that would be interesting. Then take the next level of complexity and see how it fits into the level of societies. OK, now I'm getting lost in my own head. What I'm saying is, what would Feldenkreis's writing look like if it was written in a language which takes into account the last 30 years of accumulated knowledge about human movement, pain, human psychology, etc? I'm talking of the equivalent for current times. I have a feeling Feldenkreis would have adapted his thinking to encompass new findings. The concept of minimal movement versus minimal effort is a tricky one. At uniersity we learned that a skilled performer was more efficient than a novice, even when the two were performing the same task and it looked much the same. This is normal skill acqusition stuff, nothing new here. Was he then talking about becoming more skilled at movement through practice? I've not attended any workshops, not yet anyway, so I can't give you my impression. I don't think I'm managing to enlighten anyone today! I hope to catch you before you go to Barrett's workshop, perhaps throw some good local wine in (it seems to work for Lorimer and David!). Pablo

31-07-2005, 05:53 AM	#8
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	I think I know what you're saying. I agree that Moshe F chose the word 'giving' rather inaccurately in reference to society's endowments. That is more through naivety I suspect. 'organic nature'? Yes, that sounds weird, too. But written in the context, perhaps of the pre-70s, not surprising. I presume he refers to what we really want to do with our lives, rather than be dictated by society's rules. Society imposes rules to enable some sort of cohesiveness and to temper instincts that may be damaging to self or the community; I think Feldenkrais feels this has spin-offs in the direction of loss of identity and therefore, reduced functional efficiency. Now I'm getting lost... Yes, he was talking about increasing movement skills through efficient and selective muscle recruitment (modern day lingo) rather than bringing everything in, particularly, I suspect, if momentum is poor, and planning is poor as well. From what I recall of the workshop, the simple act of raising one arm and the contralateral leg in lying was one thing done spontaneously x 1, and with increased awareness became a quite different sensation..so easy and fluid. Re the wine...there is a 1.5l limit on taking it into Canada, so we won't get too carried away, but sounds a good idea. Certainly on the Friday night we will probably be celebrating one way or the other, and we'll think of you on your birthday! Email me sometime about catching up. Nari

31-07-2005, 08:22 AM	#9
pablo Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 40 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	It's interesting, isn't it, how quickly the perceived effort of a movement can change. Even just focusing one's attention to a particular body part will change how it feels, and how it feels to move. Playing sport, and even at work I guess, there are moments when everything seems effortless and performance is enhanced, "the zone". I wonder if there any parallels? Slight change of topic, I guess, but I think they are related. Pablo

01-08-2005, 12:28 AM	#11
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Chris Liked your further explanation of this guy's 'dreams'. I'm tending to find that link between him and Barrett becoming clearer; then I want to link between Barrett, Rocobado, Mennell, Bobath et al. Why do I paint myself into esoteric corners? Because it's fun and I am probably a frustrated psychologist; I have suspected that for years. In some ways, then, I am 'constrained' by physiotherapy and its strict borders, it is not really 'me', whoever me is. Cheers Nari

01-08-2005, 01:53 AM	#12
pablo Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 40 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hi Diane, I have no doubt that language influneces the way we think, and that through different languages people have different ways of looking at the world. I was fortunate to learn Spanish as a kid (growing up in Argentina) and Polish also (long story). There are still concepts in English which are strange to me. Some thing which I understand from an academic perspective but which don't make sense in terms of the language that's used. Sometimes I think in Spanish, although I suspect less and less. Hopefully one day I'll look into the langauge thing a bit more. Just to complicate things: At the Australian Pain Society meeting last year, one of the presenters looked at the similarities between brains and language. The main point was this, that language was a product of the brain, and thus limited in its scope to make sense of the world. The human brain does not have infinite power, and there are things it cannot do. So there are things language cannot do. One of these things might be describing the uninverse, or describing pain. He then made an interesting parallel between this and Eastern philosophy, in which there is the cocept of the "tao" or way, or universe I guess. They have a saying that goes something like this: "the tao of which we speak is not the true tao", meaning that it is only part of a bigger whole. When describing the universe in scientfic terms, this is what happens, that we only have the capacity to describe parts of it at a time and not really appreciate the whole. Maybe it can't be done because of the limits imposed by the structure of the brain and thus its product. Is anyone as confused as I am? Great topic, though! Pablo

01-08-2005, 02:43 AM	#13
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	True. We tend to think, I guess naturally, that if something is 'out there' but we can see or understand only a part of it, it either goads us on (as physicists and astronomers and microbiologists) or we become distracted by other things that are more 'whole' in our perception. But the difficulty is, for mere mortals and not esoteric academics, that if our brains cannot determine the nature of something, then we assume it may not or does not exist, because it defies the second law of thermodynamics or whatever. That is our shortfall in thinking across the broad spectrum. Understanding something is only limited by our willingness and cortical ability to 'see' it. Nari

01-08-2005, 07:37 AM	#14
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Pablo Yes, I am confused too, after doing a search and not finding much of mind-grabbing interest that is fairly recent. Simon Conway Morris with all his theories on the principle of convergence, does not even squeak about language, which is surprising given that he explores almost everything else in great detail, from invertebrates to homo sapiens. Susan Greenfield talks about the linked areas in the brain for spoken, visualised and heard words, and there is even a separate section for generation of verbs(?) but she does not go beyond that. I wonder if dolphins have similar links, given their language is becoming more and more identifiable........ Nari

08-08-2005, 07:54 AM	#15
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Now you're sounding a bit existentialist, Bernard.. I think society confines most of us much more than we think. People go on a holiday to a beach or resort, and often their eczema, pain, depression improves greatly. Then they return and often the problems reappear. The reason is still considered as 'climate change' or 'relaxation', but it goes deeper than that. I think so anyway.. What happens in a city/town? We obey road rules, park where we are 'told' to park, work under rules, dress according to current fashion, eat according to current fashion; watch TV because it is thrust at us; (well, there is a choice, but it is still invasive); admire art works that we would not have in our house in a fit, because it is the 'done thing'; keep immaculate houses because someone said germs are bad for us and a house needs to look like the inside of a display home; and so on..... There. I feel better now. Nari

13-08-2005, 07:45 AM	#16
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Bernard re your last sentence I reply: Why not? Neuronuts are in as much danger of painting themselves into deep holes as anyone else, including the musclenuts and jointnuts. I keep thinking that one day all of this brain/body stuff will all sort itself out..at the risk of thinking that there is one solution to the theory of everything.. Nari

18-08-2005, 12:06 AM	#18
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	I think that Feldenkrais has been shown to be correct, at least partly, in his portrayal of somatic expression. But is is hard to 'prove' and therefore there are many PTs who do not support the idea of cultural expectations or trauma affecting one's physical presentation. There is still a lot of Cartesian-type thinking out there; separating body from brain. Thanks Bernard. Nari

18-08-2005, 10:56 AM	#22
Diane Human Primate Social Groomer and Neuroelastician Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Weyburn Sask. Posts: 19,664 Thanks: 1,484 Thanked 3,177 Times in 1,560 Posts	I think we live in a great time. Unless we happen to be in a country that is at war. (There's been a lot of war in the past century, and the century we are in, with massive death.) Aside from that, general public health has never been better. We've never lived longer, never had a higher chance to have our natural teeth present for our demise. (In Canada) we can relax about the high cost of hospitalization... it's covered by taxes. We've pretty much eliminated communicable disease as a cause of death, with the noteable exception of aids. Poverty is the biggest killer now, and degenerative disease. Awfully low chance of dying from childbirth, or because your neighbour decides he wants your land and comes over with a big spear to poke you in the abs. Low chance of dying from a burst appendix. Low chance of dying from malnutrition because the harvest failed (except Africa for impoverishment reasons.) Much greater ease of travel and communication. I would rather have been born now than at any other time in history or prehistory, frankly. We have the luxury of feeling depressed about our favorite treatment approach not being embraced by our society which is busy keeping the roads repaired and the free public drinking water safe. Makes me feel grateful. Diane

18-08-2005, 11:46 AM	#23
bernard Admin, Moderator... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: France Age: 56 Posts: 12,013 Thanks: 241 Thanked 135 Times in 89 Posts	Well, That's give 1 for Diane and 2 for the opponents! It merely depends on the mood of the day. __________________ Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein bernard

18-08-2005, 12:48 PM	#24
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Bernard, I don't think I am an opponent to modern day living, although it may have come over that way, as I have had a vile cold/flu/whatever for nearly two weeks and boy, does it whack one's good feelings around!! But I do have concerns over development, money crazed bureaucracy and excess population.. Diane, you are right, and we are lucky to each live in a country with very good health services (and living conditions) for relatively small outlay or none at all. At the time that Feldenkrais was writing, things were no doubt different. I notice that Lonely Planet praises the Canadian health system, and it is an Aussie-based travel publication. I wonder what Moshe meant by neurosis....navel gazing, lack of motivation, irrational fears...? It is another word that is slowly going out of fashion, fortunately. Along with quite a few others as well; such as neuralgia and dropsy...though dropsy has a grandly graphic sound about it. Nari

18-08-2005, 12:54 PM	#25
bernard Admin, Moderator... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: France Age: 56 Posts: 12,013 Thanks: 241 Thanked 135 Times in 89 Posts	Nari, Was kiddin' All progress brings some marvel and misery at the same time. Nothing is perfect (surely Man!) __________________ Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein bernard

18-08-2005, 10:25 PM	#27
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Bernard What?????? Nari

19-08-2005, 01:04 AM	#28
flaviovitor SomaSimpler Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Brazil Posts: 154 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hi my favourite experts (I'm learning so much with you!!!), questions: Is there better 'exercise therapies' (such motor control therapy from physiotherapy from those guys: Jull, Hides, Hodges, Richardson, McGill, etc, etc, etc) than Feldenkrais, to provide / re-acquire quality in movement? Is there better 'exercise (physio)therapy' to reeducate faulty patterns of movement than Feldenkrais? Is there better 'exercise (physio)therapy' in the long-term to enhance such a things than Feldenkrais? Is Feldenkrais an old therapy or is it current? Is Feldenkrais 'practical' or is it difficult to apply? Opinions / ideas only ? Cheers, Flávio.

19-08-2005, 01:57 AM	#29
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Flavio These questions are very difficult to answer! I can't really say if there are superior methods, because I don't know. I doubt if anyone has shown that a particular Feldenkrais method produces consistently better results than other methods. It would be impossible to determine, with so many variables. It could be argued, I guess, that Feldenkrais places a great deal of emphasis on awareness training...but so does Alexander (of the A. technique) and Hanna. These may well have an advantage over putting someone on a treadmill or a bike for twenty minutes - but I don't know. Neurodynamics does educate a patient in awareness, but probably not as consciously as Feldenkrais does. Maybe Bernard and Diane can offer further opinions. Nari

19-08-2005, 06:48 AM	#30
bernard Admin, Moderator... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: France Age: 56 Posts: 12,013 Thanks: 241 Thanked 135 Times in 89 Posts	Nari, evil habit = smoking? Flavio, Forget the exercises technique thing. Feldenkrais, Hanna, Alexander, Rolfing... are movement therapies not just exercises. They incorporate more than simple exercises. These methods/technique are intended as global because they pay attention to breathing and "harmony"/smoothness of movement. So doesn't the other that are more local and sometimes out of the "natural" trajectories of joints. But you may find some good "pieces" of work in all ones. Yes, because Feldenkrais was a pionneer and had students and followers: Hanna with his Somatics... But Alexander and all methods that incorporate a mind/body connection may work. Actually, I do not think so. But You may achieve a fabulous job with a little Tai-Chi. They work because they are simply more "global". Old, but it resists. (In my view, it is too complicated!) Ditto 4. Hanna Somatics is easier and more complete and Tai-Chi (pure ). Feldenkrais wasn't intended to cure but to ameliorate the body mechanics. All these methods are/incorporate/involve neuro dynamics. __________________ Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein bernard

19-08-2005, 08:13 AM	#31
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Bernard Since when did you know of my evil habit??

19-08-2005, 08:37 AM	#32
bernard Admin, Moderator... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: France Age: 56 Posts: 12,013 Thanks: 241 Thanked 135 Times in 89 Posts	Diane sold it out, in a thread! __________________ Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein bernard

19-08-2005, 09:17 AM	#33
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Good grief. Must have slipped a cog. But I am very well behaved with fags, and if I don't have 'em. don't miss 'em. Like a few other things in life.... Nari

19-08-2005, 04:06 PM	#34
flaviovitor SomaSimpler Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Brazil Posts: 154 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Nari, thank you! Bernard, thank you! "Forget the exercises technique thing. Feldenkrais, Hanna, Alexander, Rolfing... are movement therapies not just exercises." It is good to know your neural / body / mind 'philosophy'. The more I visit SomaSimple, more I feel like a real apprentice of yours. So, to keep the winnings (better movement quality), global movement approaches are better? But, motor control / stability retraining / muscle imbalance (http://www.kineticcontrol.com/course...php?country=UK or http://www.performance-stability.com...ness/index.php for example) do adopt breathing during functional activities and funcional movements, with a bit of consciousness / awareness ('pay attention Mr. patient' / 'learn with your own effort' / learn to be smoother in your tasks') !!! Just the same as Feldenkrais! With the difference perhaps, of being less global ??? Cheers, Flávio.

19-08-2005, 04:48 PM	#35
bernard Admin, Moderator... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: France Age: 56 Posts: 12,013 Thanks: 241 Thanked 135 Times in 89 Posts	Hello Flavio, The first link provides some good things since there is some work of Michael Schaklock (hope I spelled it well) Clinical Neurodynamics: A New Practical System for the Treatment of Neuromusculoskeletal Disorders. I'm not sure, BTW, that SomaSimplers and NeuroNuts are on the side of core stability! Core stability is far from Feldenkrais... and far from good abdominal breathing! __________________ Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein bernard

19-08-2005, 05:51 PM	#36
flaviovitor SomaSimpler Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Brazil Posts: 154 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hello Bernard, I have the course (assisted in 2005) of and with MICHAEL SHACKLOCK. But, if even in the physical examination of 3a, 3b, 3c and/or 3d it does not exist any neural component / contribution to pain experience, why to apply this method (both neural gliding and tensioning?). Let me become a whole neuronut too, just as your are?! Why neuronuts do not 'think of' reestablishing normal, good or better motor control patterns? It could exist less one physical component / contribuiton to provoke brain, and maybe, to create pain. Although (I recognize it) not always physical things contribute to pain... Flávio.

19-08-2005, 10:56 PM	#37
nari NeuroNut Evangelist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ACT Aust Posts: 7,677 Thanks: 703 Thanked 232 Times in 166 Posts	Flavio The blend of motor control and more global applications is a good question. I have had patients who had no 'core stability' (ie poor Trans Ab, etc) and they became very good at recruiting TA and the rest - but it did not really change their pain experience. These were, admittedly, persistent pain people, with complex issues; and having that 'control' is a good thing (according to the experts) but I am not convinced of its real value. I think both approaches are needed - specific and global. If training TA does relieve their pain, well and good. It does not work for all spinal pain, and going 'global' may be the answer. Nari

21-08-2005, 04:57 PM	#39
flaviovitor SomaSimpler Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Brazil Posts: 154 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Thanks for replying Nari. Bernard, 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d, are part of diagnostic and treatment evolution by Michael Shacklock. He teaches in his course and it is just in his book (CLINICAL NEURODYNAMICS) ?! I myself, think it could be considered a good question (in the light of neurodynamic knowledge), since these tests look for any dysfunction on nerves... their pathodynamics!!! Flávio Vitor.