John Quinn

I have just looked at the first pages of each of his books. Consistently, I find a strong emphasis on ‘autonomy’, self-education and related ideas as being what his work is about, clearly making movement and other discrete purposes subordinate to this larger idea .

You write: “For me the real core of the Method, though, is none of these, but the potential it offers for empowering autonomy.” It seems odd to me that you develop this theme without any clear references to the source of this idea within the Method, which is its founder. Rather, you focus on your perception of a wide lack of appreciation for this idea among practitioners.

As with you, this idea of his got my attention and interest because I was already thinking this way. A friend read about him in 1981 and said: “You have to go see him. He says everything you say.” And I found he knew so much more what to do about it. It was his way of working that held my interest, his ideas around “correction of movements is the best means of self-improvement” [pp 33-39 in Awareness Through Movement].

The point I would make about ’source’ and ‘authority’ seems to be different from yours. There may be a lack of familiarity with the richness and complexity of his writing, and this is a problem precisely because his writing is an authoritative source about his method. I think we agree that it [writing/method] is useless if not and explored and reflected upon. I think this requires first a familiarity with it.

You wrote: “I believe that some trainings to rely too much on Moshe as the authority for what they teach — prescribing particular ways of doing things because that’s how Moshe did or said to do them, and making students wrong for understanding or doing them differently.” Well, yes, but … this is a bit vague on the particulars.

As Moti points out, the teachers in question are asserting their own authority, which is to say, the accuracy of their perception. Moshe did it all the time, as the Alexander Yanai transcripts show. Like George, I argue with him a lot. Typically, after I exercise my own ‘Responsibility’ I discover something that leads me to feel I’ve come to understand his point. Still, when I teach it, out comes a different ‘handwriting’ than his.

I get the sense that you have some specific perceptions of your own; and disagreements not just with ’some trainings’ or with his language in some ATMs but with Moshe’s Method itself. As you know, I am not convinced that ‘there is no method’. I would be interested in knowing how instructive and central [or not] you find his remarks on pages 33-39 in Awareness Through Movement.

Good stuff. Two thoughts.

First, it seems to me you raise a slightly unfair point in your criticism of elementary school teachers. What is often left out, or at least suppressed in such discussions is the role of the group dynamic, and the relationship between the teacher and the “group identity.” Whether or not it is an ideal situation, there are many more children than teachers, requiring a different kind of relationship, with different “needs.”
A child may have many reasons for requesting to go to the bathroom beyond urination and defecation. Nervousness about dealing with a new concept often causes children to express a desire to go, and when one six year old says they want to go, many of the others instantly want to follow suit. This quickly creates an impossible situation for the teacher because the level of chaos has gone up exponentially.
It is even more difficult for a teacher to try to determine the actual reason for the bathroom request – real pee or nervousness or…?
I agree with you that a student is asked to suppress a biological response, but a good teacher will quickly determine whether it is an emergency. If not, the student then is requested to put the needs of the group (sometimes, this is actually the need of the teacher, but let’s assume a more benign environment) before their own.
The lesson is much more complicated than simply learning to ignore one’s inner authority. It’s about making a decision about a relationship. Some children refuse to relate to the group and the teacher in this way, putting themselves first. Sometimes they are punished, and sometimes they are accomodated.
There are numerous opportunities during the day when a student is not under such constraints. Lessons of self-authority arise during social interaction with peers and with creative projects. Also, good teachers provide opporunities for them in lessons.
Second point: I’m not sure everyone submits to Moshe as the authority for the sake of bowing to him. As we are no longer dealing with a man who can answer (or refuse to answer) our questions, then if we don’t understand what he said or wrote, we have a choice: assume he is right or assume he is wrong and go from there. Assuming he is right requires a temporary suspension of disbelief as we investigate his ideas. It really is temporary, though, because many of us release ourselves from this stricture once we are convinced of the relative truth or falsity of his ideas. Even those who say they are “bowing” to him are actually just using their own ideas and using him to add authority to it.

Thanks for listening!

Any learning involves an act of submission .

That is, an apprenticeship either to a teacher or to a discipline or an idea. I believe this is where the notion of autonomy, as you present it becomes most important. That the decision to submit is voluntary and informed.

This decision is or should be provisional but it is contractual. (for a great example of this read Eugen Herrigal’s book Zen in the Art of Archery). That is if the student withdraws his submission the teacher withdraws his teaching.

This as Moti points out is a position of great responsibility both on the part of the teacher and the student. In a really great teacher , conveying the nature of this agreement, can become the central teaching.

It is of course incumbent on the student to decide to terminate or change his or her relationship to the teacher. It is also the teachers responsibility to recognize when the relationship needs modifying.

It is in our nature to take things superficially. We always have choice and frequently to take matters to the next level does not suit our purposes or whims. We are like schoolboys who steal the powerful magnifying lens just so we can go start fires.

I have had the great opportunity to work and learn with a lot of great teachers in our community. I don’t feel I have met any one who I feel has plumbed the depths of Moshe’s thinking . I certainly know that I haven’t.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t argue or question Feldenkrais’ thinking or how he presented it . I never even met him but find myself arguing with him all of the time. It also doesn’t mean that I think his thinking is the final word. In fact I think that Moshe had only glimmers of the possibilities inherent in the method that he laid out. This is the beauty in our work and what keeps me engaged in it.

Thanks,
Moti