Miss Goldie - Pathways

Q: Have I got this quote of Margaret Goldie right?

“The work is about building pathways throughout the body so that in time something can pass through.”

A: As you know, Miss Goldie rarely used Alexander language in her teaching, as in her view from what she had witnessed over the years the words had become meaningless.

Instead of talking about directions and non-doing, she used language such as “brain-thought level”, “giving and withholding consent”, “you are not up yet”, “let all the good working go on in the back.”

Thus if she asked you to move your arm-hand onto the upper part of the leg, you withheld consent to do so. Then through watch-fullness and sensing through brain-thought level/body,  "Give consent and let it happen" (her words). Taking part of course in the movement, through this practice gradually "You are building pathways in the body along which in time something will travel." The pathways are of course not It; neither are they what we might call the directions. 

For myself as I have been guided deeper towards the Work, I have found that one comes to experience that the channels are already there, in the spine and along either side of the spine, conveying energy to the centers of the body particularly at the base of the spine, abdomen, solar plexus, heart area, throat, centre of the forehead, crown of the head. But this is profoundly subtle and not something one can 'do' without guidance.  

However, Miss Goldie's words on their own would probably have only confused me if I had not also the influences of good dance classes, Mr Macdoanld, Rose Li, Walter Carrington, properly guided meditations under worthy guides. But all these influences are wrought with pitfalls. It is best to be clear that the work practice is not the Work. I can only go on what has been said to me about the Work: "One becomes joined to it through grace." Intuitively I feel this is so.

Q: When you say " the pathways are of course not It; neither are they what we might call the directions," would it be fair to say that the directions are the means whereby we might recognise "the channels that are already there"? 

A: Yes, as long as the directions are correct in orientation and in their bearing. Mr Macdonald would sometimes call upon us to bear up. 

Q: I understand your statement “one comes to experience that the channels are already there” in relation to the exposure I’ve had to relatively many certified, practicing Alexander Technique teachers. Many that have worked on me seemed to be engaged in “releasing” tension without respect to the directions. This would often subjectively feel good (at least at the time; more recently, I do not experience it that way). Equally, I have experienced those who use force to pull the body in what they believe to be an upward direction. As Macdonald writes:

What is certain is that in civilized Man there is a growing tendency for force “A" to dominate force "B", and the results are (or should be) obvious to all. It is necessary, therefore, in order to bring the body back to a state of integrity, to minimize the effect of force "A" and restore that of force "B". This, though a fairly simple piece of re-education, is subtle and needs the help of a highly skilled teacher, otherwise the attempt to restore force "B" will almost certainly result in a strengthening of force "A".

For the most part, such people wind up simply “resculpting the body” as you have put it to me in the past.

My experience is that neither of these versions of “teaching”–i.e., a downward “releasing” of surface tension creating an inappropriate softness or a reshaping of the exterior of the body in a direction that appears to be more upright–consists in a usable, employable technique. Neither version gave me a way to inhibit and direct, and I believe that your statement “one comes to experience that the channels are already there” explains why.

If the directions are not, as you say, “correct in orientation and their bearing”, they are not directions at all in the parlance of the Alexander Technique. Without such directions, any attempt at inhibition will be relatively superficial. The few teachers who seemed to have received and are able to pass on “direction” (as I read Alexander) are marked by one feature: The direction I received from them is still accessible to me. So to follow on from your comment that “one comes to experience that the channels are already there”, it seems that those teachers who have shown me a “true direction” have simply awakened an existing channel that had gotten obscured rather than imposed an artificial idea of what is needed on the body.

A. With regards the concept of 'resculpting' the body one may find it of benefit to try and understand something of Wu Wei. 

The Sage is occupied with the unspoken

and acts without effort.

Teaching without verbosity,

producing without possessing,

creating without regard to result,

claiming nothing,

the Sage has nothing to lose.

- Tao Te Ching Chapter II

______________________________________________________ 

 

Comments

[S. G.]

Responding to the part of the blog:

If the directions are not, as you say, “correct in orientation and their bearing”, they are not directions at all in the parlance of the Alexander Technique. Without such directions, any attempt at inhibition will be relatively superficial. The few teachers who seemed to have received and are able to pass on “direction” (as I read Alexander) are marked by one feature: The direction I received from them is still accessible to me. So to follow on from your comment that “one comes to experience that the channels are already there”, it seems that those teachers who have shown me a “true direction” have simply awakened an existing channel that had gotten obscured rather than imposed an artificial idea of what is needed on the body.

In those individuals without neuro-physiological deficit or injuries, the neural pathways are there to allow for movement in a coordinated fashion. However what about those born with genetic defects? Will they not require a considerable amount of remedial work to activate the channels mentioned above? Therefore the questioner’s language is not precise and certainly not entirely correct. The Alexander Technique world knows very little about the developmental movement that precedes the raising up of the head and the activation of the ‘sitting up’ reflexes. Assumptions are made that have no bearing in fact.

The early developmental movements which take place on a baby’s back…rolling from side to side, moving the legs in opposition, learning to cross the midline, etc. are required to prepare the body for sitting, standing, and weight-bearing. Without them, normal movement will be compromised; one will not able to maintain the primary control without considerable compensatory activity, including tightening the neck to maintain balance. The education has to take place in the proper sequence in the infant brain, building upon previous learned movements.

I believe as Mr Macdonald did that precision of language is crucial to our profession. Yes, the Alexander Technique work is about re-education, but what about those who never received the education in the first place, who never had the experience of ‘the right thing does itself’? Further and different work may be required.

[M Mazzeo]

Ted,

The above comment doesn’t seem to be a meaningful response to the paragraph cited, but I’ll answer it anyway since I wrote that portion of the post.

In those individuals without neuro-physiological deficit or injuries, the neural pathways are there to allow for movement in a coordinated fashion. Nowhere in the original post do we mention neural pathways or movement in a coordinated fashion. The Alexander Technique deals with inhibition and direction, which does not always result in coordinated movement. Goldie talked about pathways and work at a brain-thought level, not neural pathways. You reference “the channels [that] are already there, in the spine and along either side of the spine, conveying energy to the centers of the body particularly at the base of the spine, abdomen, solar plexus, heart area, throat, centre of the forehead, crown of the head.” I assume that your words and Margaret Goldie’s words were chosen carefully. However what about those born with genetic defects? Will they not require a considerable amount of remedial work to activate the channels mentioned above? The work required to awaken the channels in any individual may vary. The poster is conflating the lack of ability to move or to move in a coordinated way with the lack of capacity to direct. He/she may also be trying to ask is if there are some people who may need physical remediation to be able to sense the directions through areas of difficulty. You can speak to this better than I can, but either way, the answer has no bearing on the fact that energy channels exist in the body and that they have usually become inaccessible or “blocked” in some way. Therefore the questioner’s language is not precise and certainly not entirely correct. Non sequitur. The Alexander Technique world knows very little about the developmental movement that precedes the raising up of the head and the activation of the ‘sitting up’ reflexes. It is possible to direct while lying down or to give direction to someone who is in the supine position. There is no such thing as a sitting-up reflex. A reflex is an automatic reaction that is mediated in the spinal cord or brainstem (like an eye blink or a sneeze) rather than in the brain. Sitting up is not such a reaction. Further, the scientific community does not claim to precisely understand all of the mechanisms involved in sitting up. Assumptions are made that have no bearing in fact. Which ones? The incorrect assumptions that have any bearing on the discussion of the Technique are a) the poster’s assumption that the province of the Alexander Technique is movement when it is actually inhibition and direction as precursors to activity, and b) the poster’s assumption that I have implied that learning to direct obviates the need to go through normal development or necessary remedial work. I have implied no such thing, and direction, movement, movement development, and movement rehabilitation are clearly different things.

The following is a bit in the vein of “Forwards is forwards and back is back,” because I don’t know quite how else to respond. Alexander’s technique consists of inhibition and direction. Period. Full stop. That’s it.

Inhibition: I say “no” to the activity that I am going to do. Direction: I reorganize myself according to what you’ve shown me (or you do it for me and deepen my experience of it in a lesson). When it is time to move, I continue saying “no” as far as I am able so as to avoid triggering any behaviors I associate with the activity even though I am cognizant that the activity is going on, and the directions do their part to preempt or override the old behaviors.

Macdonald makes the distinction between direction and movement utterly clear:

DIRECTION AND MOVEMENT
I define my terms. I think that we probably all agree on what is meant by Movement in our context: "change of position" of the body or its parts will meet the case. However, the definition of Direction is far from easy. First of all it should be realized that we use this word for four (and possibly more) different phenomena.

1. Negative directions, i.e., do not stiffen your neck.
2. If you have stiffened your neck, release it.
3. Somewhat similar to 2. Directions to make movement (i.e., move your hand).

These are all conscious directions. Now we come to No. 4, which may be conscious or unconscious and has to do with sending a flow of force to alter the condition of a part or parts. In this case the movement is so small as to be practically no movement at all. It can be regarded as similar to a flow of electricity along a wire or of sound along a metal bar. I do not know at what speed these "flow of force" directions travel.
Now, too many people confuse direction No. 4 with No. 3, and it is not always recognized that a movement can take place in a totally different direction to that of a No. 4 direction. [my emphasis]

With all of the above in mind, it is clear that the poster is confusing coordinated movement (#3) with direction (#4) and the internal coordination with which direction is concerned. Making a coordinated movement is well removed from direction and, while it is a nice outcome, well removed from its (direction’s) purpose.

Alexander: "You are not here to do exercises, or to learn to do something right, but to get able to meet a stimulus that always puts you wrong and to learn to deal with it."

Coordinated movement is a likely outcome of inhibition and direction assuming that one is able bodied, but it is not an absolute. There can be coordinated movement without inhibition and direction, there can be coordinated movement with inhibition and direction, and there can be inhibition and direction without coordinated movement. There is no necessary correlation between them. An able body is an asset to learning to inhibit and direct but not a requirement.

Further, we refer to the position of mechanical advantage, NOT the position of mechanical necessity. As you have relayed to me many times, Macdonald said and showed that it was possible to direct regardless of the position of the head in relation to the body and in any or most any position in space.

We don’t need to look any further than a table turn to know that inhibition and direction do not have to involve any #3 movements. Alexander himself reportedly did nothing for months but inhibit and direct in bed following his stroke. It is possible to receive direction when one is asleep. And so on.

The poster is unhappy about some assumptions he/she believes I have made, but in fact the only assumptions that are creating confusion are his/her own, namely: a) that I believe #4 can compensate for/act as a remedy for malcoordinated or otherwise deranged #3 (I don’t), and more significantly b) that relearning or rehabilitating #3 has more than a peripheral significance to the Alexander Technique proper (it doesn’t).

It is not the job of the Alexander teacher to rehabilitate body parts or neutralize pain. When it happens as part of the learning process–and it probably often does–everyone is pleased. But with Macdonald’s admonition in mind that “It is the job of the teacher of the Alexander Technique, without disregarding other ways, to deal with the one for which he or she has been trained,” it is important to actually know the difference between inhibition/direction and bodywork (however sophisticated or efficacious) if you want to learn and teach the Alexander Technique. We are here to teach inhibition and direction, to prevent the domination of past and future over present. Alexander discusses this ad infinitum, and there is nothing equivocal in what he is saying in this regard.

One should not draw the conclusion from any statements above that I am suggesting body rehabilitation or simply learning more coordinated movement is undesirable in any way; that is neither stated nor implied.

The real curiosity is why this is such a common source of confusion, even when it is so incredibly simple (but not easy) and even when one has studied at length with you (or for that matter, with Macdonald). As Macdonald said, it is not difficult in theory.

I think the confusion is partly due to the fact that the Alexander Technique is a form. It has no content. It is unlike most of the activities that people undertake, and they unconsciously try to impose the rules of their usual activities on it because pure form is so seldom encountered. Unless pure form is intrinsically appealing or intuitively understood, it’s probably not going to be understood for some time, if ever.

Consider these statements: “The education has to take place in the proper sequence in the infant brain, building upon previous learned movements... Yes, the Alexander Technique work is about re-education, but what about those who never received the education in the first place…” This is more confusion; what is being referred to here as “education” is a child’s empirical, trial-and-error experiments meeting the programming hardwired into the brain (#3) and the eventual mastery or lack thereof of such movements (still #3)–emphatically not the education/re-education Alexander spoke of.

The Alexander Technique is NOT movement re-education. It is a re-education in how to learn. It is a re-education in how to be.

Alexander: "When I ask you to draw your tongue away and say "t", I mean you not to say "t". I mean you definitely to prevent it, to give orders, and not to say "t". I ask you to say "t" because I don't want you to say "t", because I want to give you the opportunity of refusing to say "t". [my emphasis] This is EVERYWHERE in Alexander’s writings (if his writing has one purpose, explaining this is it), and he is making it as obvious as he possibly can. Movement is one way in; it makes something that is relatively elusive or subtle more obvious, and it shows in bolder strokes what one is up against. But it is, of course, possible to inhibit sitting even as I am already sitting, for example. The point is that improved movement is a possible symptom of progress rather than the destination.

Another confusion in circulation among those who study the Alexander Technique is that if one has a physical limitation, one should inhibit and direct until kingdom come rather than consult a professional who is trained to deal with physical limitations. The poster did realize the need for this and has rightly referred to such work as “further and different work,” so I’m not sure why movement #3 is still getting confused with movement #4. Maybe it is due to attachment to the Technique despite the fact that it was not the work that was actually needed to remedy his/her physical limitation?

Whatever the confusion is stemming from, the difference between the coordinated movement the poster is speaking of (#3) and direction (#4) is not a subtle one. Understanding the difference is absolutely fundamental to understanding the Technique. For all the professed concern with precision, this person has conflated two grossly different things.

During my training, there was a member of the class who was an amateur singer, and the teacher was one day doing whispered ah with her. When the student opened her mouth, the teacher said, “You opened your mouth in the way you open it when you sing.” The student said, “Yes, I would love to get rid of it.” The teacher said, “We are not here to get rid of it; we are here to be able to get rid of it, to learn.” If you understand what she meant, you understand the whole issue. The two things may seem similar, but they are not, at least as far as the Alexander Technique is concerned. The former may (or may not) give you the ability to sing with less tension; the latter gives you the sky. It’s the same thing Dewey meant when he said that the Technique “bears the same relation to education that education itself bears to all other activities,” the same thing Alexander meant when he said, “You ask me to lift that chair. If I give consent, that’s all I can do.”

To get back to the poster’s comment, the meat of the paragraph that has been commented on relies heavily on your words; my comments do little more than expand on them based on my own experience. To recap the discussion: The channels are pre-existing, and therefore directions are not simply a matter of imposing any particular teacher’s idea of coordination on the body; the Alexander Technique aims to populate the channels with a specific quality of energy; anything that does not result in the ability to inhibit and direct is not what Alexander was talking about (that’s not to say that it doesn’t have merit in its own right). It seems simple enough to me, but I can explain further if necessary. The only assumption that seems to have any bearing on the poster’s comments is the one that assumes the Alexander Technique addresses something that it does not address, which is the poster’s own assumption.

Finally, I’d like to say that I agree with you that the Alexander work is a spiritual path. The above conversation shows how relevant the distinction is. We need to be clear about when to consult the guru and when to consult the physiotherapist.