I can see that, but not everyone
can be technical and that does not mean they have evil
intentions.
[From Bill Powers (2007.05.22.1040 MDT)]
Jim Dundon 05.22.07.0932edt –
The problem has nothing to do with being “technical.” It has to
do with my having to read an endless series of assertions that are
completely made up out of the writer’s imagination, with no attempt to
reason or explain. The first hundred pages or so of the “Conscious
Control of the Individual” book, which I got through as best I
could, express ideas that the writer evidently believes, but which seem
to me like the meanderings of a pompous, self-absorbed, prejudiced person
who seems to accept every thought that crosses his mind as true just
because he thought of it. What does he know about “savages” or
about earlier stages of human evolution? Absolutely nothing: he simply
imagines it all, makes up a story. He presents his opinions as facts, his
beliefs as truths, his judgments as infallible.
How did he decide that holding your arms, elbows, and fingers in a
certain way is the “correct” way, while all other ways are
mistakes? Why is lengthening your spine better than letting it be curved?
Why should your head be held forward and up? How did he determine that
all these arbitrary, fussy, peremptory prescriptions for how to be and
behave are the only correct ways? Why should anyone put themselves under
his orders and accept his teachings as gospel? He gives neither reasons
nor justifications.
I am not sure there
is a singular agreed upon technical meaning of sensory appreciation
because Alexanders world was not a technical world but he did his best to
explain his views and the quote below is akin to your more technical
comparison of the behavior of man and machine. I am asking
you to relax your technical requirements for a moment, to stop
demonstrating your “faith in science”, faith that you say has
no place in science, and be generous enough to see the value of his
comments compared to yours.
I’m not talking about faith in science. My faith is in openness, honesty,
self-criticism, humility, and a desire to know what is that takes
precedence over the desire to be right. Those are my “technical
requirements”. I see none of these virtues in Alexander’s writings
that I have seen so far.
From his book
“Concious Control” copy attatched.
"The function of sensory appreciation will be clear to us if we stop
for a
moment and consider the human organism as an animate machine, and compare
its mechanical processes with those of an inanimate machine.
The
reliability of both machines is dependant upon the standard of
reliability
of their controlling, propelling, motor, and other mechanisms,…THE
CONTROLLING FACTOR TAKING PLACE AS CAUSING THE OTHER MECHANICAL FACTORS
TO WORK CO-ORDINATELY AND TO GIVE THE BEST PRACTICAL USE.
But the all important DIFFERENCE from our standpoint between the animate
and the inanimate machine lies in the quality of function of their
respective
controlling mechanisms. In the inanimate machine the controlling
mechanism
is limited by the fixed nature of its own makeup and by certain
fixed
conditions in the other mechanisms without which it cannot operate.
In the
animate machine, or human psychophysical organism, THE CONTROLLING
MECHANISM IS A wonderful psychophysical PROCESS by means a which an
almost unlimited use of the different units which make up the whole may
be brought about …"
These paragraphs are an excellent illustration of my points above.
Alexander tells us what an animate machine and an inanimate machine are,
and what the controlling factor is, but he gives absolutely no reason why
we should believe him. He does not treat us as equals to be persuaded,
but as ignorant pupils who are to be enlightened, who are to accept his
words just because he says them. What good does it do to hear him say
that “the controlling mechanism is a wonderful psychophysical
process by which an almost unlimited use of the different units … may be
brought about”, when he gives us no reason to think this is true,
and does not say what this controlling mechanism is, why it is wonderful,
what process is involved, and what makes him think the result is almost
unlimited? These assertions are given from on high, as one who knows
informs one who does not know and who wouldn’t understand even if you did
explain. He hints that there are reasons for saying these things but
never says what they are.
When you say in one
of your papers that you used the human organism as a prototype for the
model and then proceeded to limit the prototype to what can be built into
machinery and only explained mathematically and continue to do so, is
that bamboozlement, a commitment to principal, or an ongoing
investigation?
“Limiting the prototype” never crossed my mind – it was all I
could do to come up with a model that works as well as it does. If I knew
how to make a better one I would certainly do so. I suppose that makes it
an ongoing investigation, if I have to choose. Anyway I didn’t say I used
the human organism as a prototype for what can be built into machinery –
that’s your spin. I said that engineers tried to figure out how to make
machines that could do certain kinds of tasks that up to then only human
beings (or other animals) could do. I don’t know how you turned that into
what you said. Your remembering your own conclusions, not my
words.
At least alexander
gives a wide degree of freedom, his views coincide with yours in
many ways.
I think they diverge is far more ways, and where they coincide it’s
purely an accident – he never gives reasons for saying what he says,
whereas I always do. The difference is that I trust my listeners to be
able to deal with observations for themselves, and to reach their own
conclusions given the same observations I use. Alexander, contrary to
what you say, gives no freedom at all to think independently and to draw
your own conclusions. He is too busy telling you what is right, how to
think, and what to conclude.
Maybe we
could controll for using that to your advantage instead of calling him a
fraud especially since you have attested to the effectiveness of his
approach to behavior modification.
No, I have not attested to the effectiveness of his approach, nor have I
said that behavior modification, however achieved, is what we want. You
are remembering your own thoughts about what I said, not what I said. I
have not experienced his approach, and from what I have just been reading
I’m quite certain that I would not sit still for it. Of course if someone
has a serious problem, it’s possible that practically any form of
attention to the details will result in feeling better, but I see no
reason to assume that Alexander’s idea of “better” should take
precedence over mine, or anyone else’s.
Sorry, Jim and other Alexandrites, I am completely unimpressed with what
I have read so far. It’s quite possible that if I experienced the
Alexander Technique at the hands of an expert (who could refrain from
trying to explain things) I would agree that it’s effective, but so far
it’s also possible that I would come away with a different impression.
And it’s dead sure that even if it’s effective, I wouldn’t have any
reason to believe Alexander knows why it’s effective.
Bill P.