Uncertain Consequences - Revisited

[Barrett Dorko]

I’ve spent some time recently looking through some of the archived threads in Barrett’s Bullypit (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=81), which began as an ongoing discussion of neurogenic pain and its management with David Butler in February of 2001 on Rehab Edge. To me, this writing is a treasure trove of original thinking and innovation. There was no hesitance on the part of those participating (many of whom have moved here to Soma Simple) to speculate and then support their thinking with references you won’t find anywhere else. As with this site, sharp questioning of those who proposed methods of management they couldn’t support was common, but when Rehab Edge became a purely commercial venture and these same therapists threatened to withold their advertising dollars unless I was made to shut up - well, you know what happened next.

The reason I bring all of this up is because one specific thread, The Consequences of Uncertainty (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1278), contains writing from several regular contributors to this site that, I think, can lead us into another fruitful discussion regarding the abnormal neurodynamic – its presentation, prevalence and confounding nature.

I want to both re-examine and expand upon what was said there. After listening to Michael Shacklock last week I am increasingly convinced that unless the therapy community looks deeper into instinctive function we will struggle unnecessarily with many patients who have no hope of finding help from those who don’t. I’ve had an analogy that includes the telegraph and the Pony Express in my head for a while I want to use here as well, but I’ll wait a bit on that.

Let’s begin with a line inspired by the original thread:

In Michael Shermer’s Science Friction he writes that the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski discovered that the level of superstition among Trobriand Island fisherman depended upon the level of the uncertainty of the outcome-“the farther out to sea they went, the more complex their superstitious rituals became.”

The proposed methods of both Shacklock and Butler contain an emphasis on very careful and precise manual coercion not normally seen in other passive modes of manual care. They appropriately appreciate the sensitivity of the system they seek to change and are well aware of the fact that they might easily elicit motion in the wrong direction. Indications of improvement are sought from the patient’s expression and function that may or may not be reliable or valid. It is almost as if the uncertainty present in the practitioner’s mind is reflected in their practice – an uncertainty not commonly seen in “mesodermal” disorders.

Is it possible to reduce the uncertainty that commonly accompanies this sort of care by looking deeper in the system for instinctive responses to neural compromise? Are those who teach coercive methods able to change in this direction? If not, why not?

[Diane]

I think I get what you're asking here Barrett. If there were a series of rules to follow that would make the nervous system one was treating more visible to one's kinesthetic perception, more agreeable to one's presence, and more willing to follow a treatment plan you've got in mind, it might be,

1. land lightly,
2. let the nervous system have time to welcome you,
3. wait for it to invite you to make your next move.

There is a 3 or 4 pound live perceiving creature (nervous system) embedded within the "meat" or the mesoderm. It is that live filamentous creature we treat, not the meat it enlivens.

[Barrett Dorko]

Reasons for the rules:

1))Weber-Fechner. If the therapist lands in any other way the threshold of sensitivity to sensory excitation (the deforming of the skin) is raised, making the patient’s sense of their own inclination difficult to, well, sense.

2)See Libet’s Mind Time. There is a slight delay between the unconscious inclination to act, the conscious awareness of that act and the act we can see or sense otherwise. If you don’t wait a bit you’ll miss that.

3) New stimulation leads to new change. Bobath called it “the three second rule.” If you’re not getting what you want after three seconds you should change your contact.

[Mike Terrell]

Diane,

The questions you will be asked by the mesodermalist with precise (black & white) rules of treatment would be:

1) what is "lightly"? How many pounds of pressure should be used?

2) What signs point to me being "welcomed"?

3) What is "the next move" (being specific regarding direction/time/force/etc.) and how do I know when the nervous system has "invited" me?

This is what you will be asked by PTs young and old and they will be looking for direct answers that don't require further thought. I think Barrett will back me up on this one.

mike t

[Barrett Dorko]

Mike,

You're right. I try to answer without being too vague/sarcastic/impatient/pedantic or rolling my eyes.

Not that I'm successful or anything.

This thread will, I hope, further build my case, especially the part about the Pony Express.

[nari]

Mike, you are so spot on. I can hear those questions, and the gentle shuffle of feet and thoughts away to something in one or two colours and not twenty.

Nari

[Diane]

Hi Mike,
1) what is "lightly"? How many pounds of pressure should be used? Nothing in the pounds at all. Maybe a few ounces at most. The point is to entice, not oppress, the creature inside the creature, the organism inside the organism. You don't want to be pressing so hard that you can't feel with your own Ruffinis and Merkels all the physiology that goes on in response to your being there. That's really why you are there, to help the nervous system of your patient change itself. That's really why people like us exist at all, to help nervous systems change themselves through every possible avenue, through every possible means, e.g., education, CBT, all that stuff, including through kinesthetic means, i.e. contact that physiology and feel it shift under your hand. Provoke it but gently and it will have the freedom to respond maximally.

2) What signs point to me being "welcomed"? Barrett's 4 characteristics of correction will be palpably present: warming, softening, surprise, effortlessness.. The patient may experience this consciously or it may be that only you the practitioner will feel parts of your patient's body expressing them.

3) What is "the next move" (being specific regarding direction/time/force/etc.) and how do I know when the nervous system has "invited" me?
The "next move" is to move on to some other part of the body. Which part can be somewhat planned in advance, but don't stick to the plan rigidly. If you need to make a side trip to a different area of body than was on your treatment plan that day, give yourself enough time to do that. This next part of the organism that needs attention will reveal itself in the moment; it may already be on the itinerary or you may feel you need to go there to see how it's doing, or the patient may ask you to check it out. Just stay interactive with that person's nervous system, and your own, and all will work itself out in exactly the best way possible. There are many possible best ways. Don't place artificial or arbitrary limits. The only really appropriate limits to set are therapeutic boundaries and time limit.

The time to make the next move will be when the organism inside the organism stops responding. Then move on and see if it will play some more. Do this until the session time is over.

If that isn't clear enough, then .. I don't know what else to say, except that 50% of all people are below average intelligence.

[Gil Haight]

Barrett
[QUOTE
Is it possible to reduce the uncertainty that commonly accompanies this sort of care by looking deeper in the system for instinctive responses to neural compromise?
Good question. I think the whole idea of uncertainty becomes almost irrelavant when talking about idiomotion. Since the origin of the movement is non-conscious, how can we ever be certain what it will be? Last week I was asked by a supervisor to describe what screens could be established to identify those pts who will respond favorably to my treatment. I answered by identifying the opposite. I generally get lousy results in those pts. who are certain they know what is wrong.
Gil

[Barrett Dorko]

Gil,

Would it be wrong to be "certain" that instinctive movement is always corrective?

I worry about patients that can't imagine they could know what to do without direction, but as the years pass I find that those sorts reduce in frequency - so I feel I was projecting this in my (relative) youth. Still, they will never disappear entirely.

This I know: Predicting any patient's ability to change on the basis of their intelligence, age, gender, social status, employment or general attitude when they sign in is unfair and often a mistake. It is the accuracy of the essential diagnosis that helps predict response and outcome - and that's not always certain either.

[Bas]

Gil, you're right in a sense, but I tend to think that it is NOT the predictability of the movement, but the predictability of the reaction/effect of the motion that may be determined - i.o.w.: the instinctive responses are extremely individual and varied, but the general effects can be classified I think.

I thought that Barrett's "this type of care" was referring to Shacklock and Butler's approach: with "emphasis on very careful and precise manual coercion (...)". If that is indeed the case, the way to take the uncertainty out of their approah would be to embrace the concept of ideomotion and NMD, and fully accept the non-control we have over the self-correction of a human system.
So, we step back and examine the issue of control in our approach, and what it's place is, and whether it should even be there....Pervasive in our PT-working-mind....
We (PTs) tend to think our effectiveness is in direct relationship with our control over the therapeutic process (we did start as the exercise-coach and modalities-operating person) - check out the issues PTs have with non-compliance in HEPs - and yet, there is NO study I know of that supports the notion.

A bit of a ramble - and I may be missing the point of the thread altogether.

[Gil Haight]

Barrett,
I think it was Thomas Hanna who said that somatic data need not be compared to any standard or model as it is immediately factual. No comparisons or judgements are neccessary. Those requiring direction simply can't see this. As has been discussed here before, Morris (Culture of Pain) believes this is a recognizable consequence of technology.
I can not agree with you more on your prediction rule (lack thereof) based on socio-demographics.
Gil

[Luke Rickards]

Barrett,

Until I had seen ideomotion at work (in many different pain presentations) I don't think it was possible to fully appreciate the significance of what you are referring to here.

I say this with particular reference to the altering of technique according patient responses during treatment common to all coercive methods. Too many times now I've worked with patients presenting with signs of radiculopathy and hard neurological impairments who consisently move into positions that increase neurological compromis and therefore symptoms and signs, and yet report feeling improvement immediately after, and consequently recover well.

If I were to coerce someone into a position that resulted in this kind of response then uncertainty(fear) of damage would immediately cause me to change my approach - and we would both miss out on something.

Luke

[nari]

Interesting thoughts. Once, PTs were recognised for pushing into pain until the patient got better - or worse. Then the backoff began - avoidance of pain altogether and working , still coercively, within painfree ranges. Neither achieves a consistent response that is satisfactory for the patient.

Bas,

I think the notion of 'needing' control over the patient's status is a crucial point. The tendency to think that PTs actually control whether the patient gets better - or worse- is rampant. This aspect alone may account for the failures to improve; along with the dreaded word "noncompliance".
It should be compulsory for PTs to spend some months in a pain clinic where the effort of trying to exert any control of any kind over the patient is fruitless and frustrating. It really brings home the message with a jolt, just how coercive we are with techniques and words in order to impose control.
Yet we are unaware of this; it seems to be written into the duty of care bit like a tattoo on the brain.

A quote:
Patient: (after pain education) Yeah, so this pain is real. That's good. I'm not looney. Like, no-one knows this pain..my pain. So how can they possibly help me? How can they pretend to know what it's like? All day, every day for 15 years...

Luke
I'm envious of your success. (How's that for jargon).

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

Nari,

This patient is right - no one else can know his pain. While emotional pain might elicit an accurate and appropriate empathetic response from others physical pain isolates us. This is the subject of my essay Why the movie Cast Away is precisely about my work (http://www.barrettdorko.com/articles/why_the_movie_cast_away_is_preci.htm).

Scarry puts it this way in The Body In Pain, “Though the capacity to experience physical pain is as primal a fact about the human being as is the capacity to hear, to touch, to desire to fear to hunger it differs from these events and from every other bodily and psychic event by not having an object in the external world. Hearing and touch are of objects outside the boundaries of the body, as desire is of x, fear is fear of y, hunger is hunger for z; but pain is not of or for anything-it is itself alone. This objectlessness, the complete absence of referential content, almost prevents it from being rendered in language..."

The message I try to impart to my patients is this: "You need to perform creative acts in order to re-make your world. Here's one way." That's when Simple Contact followed by enhanced ideomotor expression comes in handy.

[Barrett Dorko]

I’d like to return to the original theme of this thread – the uncertainty surrounding the movement that will resolve an abnormal neurodynamic and how that uncertainty has made coercive manual care problematic.

At present, the best known methods of management for these problems include the intricate and careful passive positioning and movement described voluminously by Butler and Shacklock. The movement itself is both active and passive, occasionally uncomfortable and often pursued painlessly. I wave the books written by these therapists above my head when I teach and always encourage my students to buy them. I also make it clear that though I revere the thinking these therapists have done, I don’t employ their techniques of management – not at all.

In 1860 the looming Civil War made communication with the US west coast crucial for a number of reasons. At the time, the fastest way to do this was the stage coach which often took a month to complete the one way journey from Missouri to California. Seeing this, a couple of men conceived the Pony Express; a series of solitary riders on horseback supported by relay stations with fresh mounts and riders who were able to carry packets of mail over the same distance in about ten days. This was a well-paid but dangerous job. Famously, a recruitment poster detailed the rider’s attributes (no one over 125 pounds) and added, “orphans preferred.”

The Pony Express operated for about 18 months, generating an entire lore that captured the imagination of a nation. It ended virtually overnight.

In 1825 William Sturgeon built the first electromagnet and ten years later William Morse proved that signals could be transmitted over a wire by using the principles of electromagnetism; one of the four known forces in the universe. Thus the telegraph was born. Though Morse successfully demonstrated the accuracy and usefulness of this device, it took five years for Congress to appropriate funds for the first telegraph wires to be strung. This delay was a reflection of the public’s apathy.

When you ask people what ended the run of the Pony Express most say “the railroad,” but they’re wrong. It was the completion of the telegraph line to California. The railroad line wasn’t connected for another eight years.

Without beating those reading this over the head with the analogy I want to say this: The most popular methods of manual care currently proposed for neural mobilization remind me of the Pony Express. They’re certainly faster than the “stagecoach” techniques of stretching and traditionally choreographed movements that the Mesodermalists have employed for decades and they contain a specificity that should be admired. In addition, the therapist often adopts a certain “heroic” stance and is revered for their intricate knowledge of neuroanatomy and physiology. I feel that’s appropriate. But the uncertainty inherent to the passive or choreographed movement of the nervous system is reflected in the incredibly intricate approach to the procedures themselves and the often (in my experience) questionable progress seen. In effect, hostile Native Americans are around every corner.

Then we have the far less coercive approach of Simple Contact (or whatever it is that Diane is calling her gentle contact with the skin these days). This seems much more like the telegraph operator sitting in Missouri, sending a massage to another operator in California. The lines to send the electromagnetic signal are in place and the people at either end know the code. The speed of this message far exceeds any pony, and there’s no danger present.

Unfortunately, as of today, public apathy remains.

[Diane]

Scarry puts it this way in The Body In Pain, “Though the capacity to experience physical pain is as primal a fact about the human being as is the capacity to hear, to touch, to desire to fear to hunger it differs from these events and from every other bodily and psychic event by not having an object in the external world. Hearing and touch are of objects outside the boundaries of the body, as desire is of x, fear is fear of y, hunger is hunger for z; but pain is not of or for anything-it is itself alone. This objectlessness, the complete absence of referential content, almost prevents it from being rendered in language..."
For me, Damasio's perspective gave me an "object" to refer to when dealing with pain. It sifted out a scenario that patients can grasp. The object I use is the idea that "the nonconscious creature brain feels threatened by hypoxia." Patients can separate themselves/objectify it from themselves fairly readily, without dissociating (which is a split that happens within the conscious mind and isn't good). Once the separation/objectification is made, it's a lot easier to recruit the conscious awareness of the patient toward solving the problem, it's no longer about them personally suffering. Instead it becomes about them being recruited to help the nonconscious brain feel it can breathe. It's a more active role. It's a caretaking role. New sides get drawn in the inner conflict. On one side is the nonconscious brain (like a wailing baby) feeling like it's suffocating/drowning, not meaning to but taking over the conscious awareness of the person with it. On the other side are three active agents: 1. the patient suffering from the pain, 2. the therapist and 3. the therapist's nervous system, trained, recruited to the task, and willing to help.

Instead of a battle between a patient in a situation of reduced power and control trying heroically to convince a therapist in a role of advantage over them that they have pain ruling their life, the situation is reframed into a simpler task where three, two of which are human minds, are devoted to helping one creature module within the patient, that functioned perfectly and silently until pain began to scream out of it, signalling that has become a bit frantic and derailed.

Creating an "object" to place the pain into is partly a symbolic act which allows distance to be created (creativity is engaged/harnessed) between self and pain one feels. The other part is that the symbol was provided by Damasio's elucidation of what is conscious, what is unconscious, and what is non-conscious, is science-based, physical, actually works this way, is not completely invented. Psychologically it is very useful. You can see people (most) heave a huge sigh of relief on several levels, mostly that they are no longer a 'victim' at the mercy of something inside them that they have no image of or language to use to describe (because now they do), and can start to solve the problem. Then my job is to be their consultant not their fixer, which makes me happy. Win win.

Just read your post Barrett, posted at precisely the same time as this one. (Dermoneuromodulation. That's what it is called now.)
To further your analogy I would like to add that defining an "object" in a patient's thinking as I have described above, or as Moseley/Butler would do by Explaining Pain, is like amping up the (non-nocioceptive) signal into the system, so the receiver at the other end of the telegraph line finds it easier to focus and receive the message without worry or distraction.

[Gil Haight]

I think Luke's point about the temporary worsening of sxs is worth discussing. At first glance it would seem the centralization phenomenon is being violated. What makes it OK in this situation and not during coersive technique is of course central to this discussion. When proceeding with idiomotion, an entirely different set of rules is followed. This is the point I was trying to make about somatic data. These rules are grounded in the absense of conscious will and are so different that our community does not appreciate their existance.
I have found Luke's decription to be common in acute pain treatment and is typically associated with the largest response. Near or actual syncope is very common.
Gil

[Luke Rickards]

When proceeding with idiomotion, an entirely different set of rules is followed. This is the point I was trying to make about somatic data. These rules are grounded in the absense of conscious will and are so different that our community does not appreciate their existance. Nicely put Gil.

Luke

[Randy Dixon]

I think the divergence in treatment approach is caused by different assumptions about why patients are in pain states. SC believes that pain is often caused by the lack of instinctive corrective movement, that this corrective movement is inhibited in patients but that it can be accessed by the patient. The other approach sees a patient in pain, since they are free to move and are unable to resolve their pain on their own, then they believe the patient is unable to access the movement that would relieve the pain therefore they try to provide that movement for the patient. I believe that the matter of a movement being able to be corrective is accepted by both approaches. If you want to converge the second approach into the first then you must prove, or convincingly demonstrate that a)something is inhibiting, but not extinguishing, the instinct or drive for corrective movement and b) that touch or ideomotion, is sufficient to disinhibit that drive.

Personally, I feel that it is (a) that is the weak link in the argument for SC. I see Diane's approach, NDM is it now? as different from both approaches, although it has elements of each.

[Barrett Dorko]

Randy,

No, Simple Contact isn't a "thing" that "believes" anything. Anthropomorphizing a method of communication simply confuses the issues surrounding the theory and method.

People hurt because one or more of the origins of pain are sufficiently present. If mechanical deformation is involved some movement will be necessary for resolution. The movement instinctively done is called ideomotion, and, no, it needn't be proved that "touch disinhibits" it. Touch simply leads to awareness. That needn't be proven.

[nari]

Gil, your point is well taken.

The very fact that neither patient nor therapist actually do anything consciously contrived may well contribute to the surprise sensation. One woman said to me today after corrective movement ceased:
My God, where was I? What was I doing? What were you doing? It felt just wonderful...
She was amazed (and so was I).

Randy,

I wonder what else you think would produce effortless movement impossible to obtain via conscious means, coupled with warmth and softening/relaxation of the tissues palpable by the therapist and sensed by the patient?
Placebo response alone doesn't explain the movement; though it might be argued that some placebo response is present, just as it is with everything we do or hear or feel.

Just curious as to why you feel it must be proven to be 'real'.

Nari

[Randy Dixon]

Why do I think it needs to be proven to be "real"? I don't care that much either way. If you read my post I am simply presenting my ideas about the likely reason others don't adopt/accept this approach even though they are highly knowledgeable about neuroscience.

"produce effortless movement impossible to obtain via conscious means,"

I see two things which you have identified here, effortless movement and impossible to attain via conscious means. Neither of these have been proven or demonstrated convincingly to everyone, or even most. There is no reason for them to accept that this effortless movement is possible for the patient to access if they are not doing so now.

"coupled with warmth and softening/relaxation of the tissues palpable by the therapist and sensed by the patient?"

How is this argument different than the argument that palpation of a spine that is misaligned can be felt by both patient and therapist, manipulation reduces the misaligment and relief is felt by the patient? (or any similar argument) You are making your argument from the perspective of someone who believes and are asking the other person to disprove it.

Barrett,

As I stated both approaches seem to accept that movement is needed for resolution.

"The movement instinctively done is called ideomotion,"

Ok, then the argument is, if it is instinctive, why aren't the patients doing it already?. I chose to call this inhibition. Using Occam's Razor why would we assume that their is a drive being inhibited by some unknown rather than assuming that their is no drive?

"and, no, it needn't be proved that "touch disinhibits" it. Touch simply leads to awareness. That needn't be proven."

I don't see why not. These patients are touched all the time, every therapist is going to touch them. This doesn't lead to self corrective movement. What is it that happens then to elicit this, if not disinhibition, a removal or reversal of whatever has prevented it until this point?

[Luke Rickards]

Randy,

I think Barrett's statement, "Touch simply leads to awareness.", is key here. Yes, it is true that patients are touched all the time, however the nature of this touch will determine the resulting experience, and let's face it, not many therapists touch patients like Barrett does.

Simple Contact presupposes that a particular manner of touch will lead to awareness of intrinsic motor activity. The ensuing expression of this movement is not the result of disinhibition however, it the result of this awareness. Gil explains this much better than me (I think), but in this respect there is also a conscious component here. Although the speed, force and direction of ideomotion will emerge without volition/conscious planning, it is the conscious shift in awareness from externally directed action to the presence of intrinsic movements that leads to their full expression. Remember, "every mental representation of a movement awakens to some degree the actual movement which is its object; and awakens it in a maximum degree whenever it is not kept from so doing by an antagonistic representation present simultaneously to the mind." If the mind is directed towards the presence of instinctive movements by the kind of touch employed in SC, and way from external goals, then ideomotion proceeds spontaneously. There is no disinhibition, just a shift of focus in awareness. Barrett, I hope I haven't misrepresented you here.

The only kind of proof we can ever have that this kind of touch leads to such awareness is the report of the patient. Of course it would be quite possible to formally document that hundreds of people treated this way say, "Yes, when he touched me I felt movement in my body and that it was OK to allow its expression", but what would be the point?

I agree with your comments in response to Nari.

Luke

[Luke Rickards]

Would it be wrong to be "certain" that instinctive movement is always corrective?
I love the a definition of instinct that Jon sent me a while ago - Instinct: a complex of specific response on the part of an organism to environmental stimuli that is largely hereditary and unalterable though the pattern of behavior through which it is expressed may be modified by learning, that does not involve reason, and that has as its goal the removal of a somatic tension or excitation
If this is the definition of instinct, then one can be certain that instinctive movement is always corrective.

[Diane]

I think finally, it all boils down to this:
Which one are you going to ethically and therapeutically support, if the nonconscious brain wants to go one way, and the conscious slice of the brain in the human organism person in your room is going another way?

I think one solution is to align to ectodermal reasoning first, then recruit the patient's conscious mind to the effort of "helping" the nonconscious nervous system, whether it ends up being a) by just getting out of its way or b) by rescuing it from hypoxia (fortunately the two psychological approaches seem to differ but are so overlapped in practical terms that they end up pretty much indistiguishable):
1. right off the bat educate the patient that there is a nervous system, that it has different parts, that pain is generated from inside it, that it's not their fault but that they can help by altering their behavior in some easy ways;
2. be clear where your loyalty/therapeutic efforts are going to be placed; i.e., with the nonconscious part;
3. how they might be able to assist the process and carry on 24/7 to continue to assist the process;
4. how long said process is likely to take.

I circumvent potential ethical and therapeutic conflict (as in first paragraph above) by using full disclosure and making their agreement part of our contract/ therapeutic seal. I wouldn't even know how to be a mesodermalist anymore.

Very much liked both your posts Luke.

[nari]

OK, so I got it wrong.

However, what I said makes sense to me. That is what I go with, at least for the time being.

Nari

[Raulan2]

Barrett,
I have had the same thoughts that Randy has. Why is simple contact different than other touch? Isn't other touch bringing awareness? Can the ectoderm differentiate Heathen, versus Enlightened touch?

The other question I have is why three out of the four measurements of assessing simple contact are expressed via mesoderm? i.e. warming (vascular), softening (muscle), effortlessness (musculoskeletal movement). i am not sure how to assess surprise?

What proof is there that idiomotor activity is the only movement that can reduce mechanical deformation?

[Diane]

Roulan, why should it matter if the mesoderm is being expressed through? What's important is that which is doing the expressing.

[Jon Newman]

Hi Luke,

If that is not the definition of instinct someone better tell the folks at Merriam-Webster.

Randy, we always have a variety of movements, actions or behaviors to choose from. Typically one gets overtly selected for a given time slice. I suppose that means the others were inhibited but one could also look at it as that they simply weren't selected. This process happens with or without being touched by another thus the touch is actually unnecessary. The affect of touch itself can be appreciated through many of Eric's recent posts. I think the importance of the role it plays in Simple Contact (which is not itself a special type of touch) is that it does appear to be a catalyst for correction.

[Barrett Dorko]

Expanding upon the Pony Express analogy, I see myself as a telegraph operator, not as some sort of heroic, solitary figure braving the dangerous frontier with little to rely upon other that my wits and strength. Of course, it is exactly that image that compels us to remember and honor the men who did this. There are three Pony Express museums still thriving and several of the riders remain well-known figures to historians. Nothing about the telegraph or the operators compares.

Coercion of the nervous system as suggested by others runs smack into the fractal geometry of this organ that not only identifies the chaotic and nonlinear nature of the activity within it, it makes a predictable response to provocation virtually impossible. I Googled “Nervous tissue” and “fractal” and got a bunch of hits. I even understood some of what was said on some of these sites. I said “some.”

The coercive therapist/Pony Express Rider enters the fractal realm/countryside at great risk and no real speed. Conversely, the Simple Contacter/telegraph operator “rises above” all of this through the wires strung, in effect, in a linear fashion.

Does that make any sense?

Raulan,

“Enlightened”? “Heathen”? This is supposed to be funny?

You actually took my workshop. Don’t you remember the hour I did about touch and its various aspects?

[nari]

Barrett

Does that make any sense?

It makes a whole heap of sense.
Perhaps an analogy worth expanding upon further; where did the indigenous people (First Nationers et al) fit into the plan?
They attacked the Pony Express riders - not the telegraph operators.

Nari

[Randy Dixon]

Luke,

Thank you for the response. I'll have to think a little more about the difference between inhibiting or removing whatever it is that is preventing corrective movement and creating awareness that allows that corrective movement. Right now it seems the same to me.

I should point out that my questions weren't so much the questions I have personally, but the questions that I think others who don't use similar methods to SC might have. I have long realized there are qualitative differences in touch, just as there are qualitative differences in movement that are near impossible to describe, or observe objectively.

[Randy Dixon]

Just to clear it up in my own mind.

"If the mind is directed towards the presence of instinctive movements by the kind of touch employed in SC, and way from external goals, then ideomotion proceeds spontaneously. "

If I say, "external goals inhibit instinctive movements, the kind of touch employed in SC removes this inhibition (disinhibits) by focusing awareness internally and allowing ideomotion to proceed spontaneously" Aren't we saying the same thing?

[Luke Rickards]

Randy,

What about "external goals may distract instinctive movements..."?

Luke