Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Manual Magic

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barrett Dorko
    replied
    Diane,

    Great link. I’m struck by the emphasis on the unconscious here and have currently concluded that when magical therapy is employed a great deal is done and perceived unconsciously by both the therapist and the patient.

    In Hiding the Elephant: How Magicians Invented the Impossible and Learned to Disappear by Jim Steinmeyer the author makes it clear that though magicians are are among the world’s greatest keepers of secrets, it is a fact that even if you know how their tricks are done, you don’t know much at all.

    Perhaps this explains how I can reveal everything I know about Simple Contact and ideomotion and still can’t get people to employ this method in the clinic.

    In fact, I think that this is the main thing this thread has taught me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    Barrett, I very much like the distinction this author drew between diversion and distraction (of attention).

    Definitely, moving slowly, speaking gently, handling carefully, making the very first physical contact a soft warm one, will get the nervous system interested in what might happen next. If not much happens next, exteroceptively, the nervous system will devise some way to meet its own expectation perhaps - create its own diversion? As long as it isn't "distracted" by noxious exteroception, it will take it on the new info as "normal" and act as if it had always done things that way itself.

    Of course, some priming will be in order or the system will be stalled by suspicion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barrett Dorko
    replied
    Diversion vs. Distraction

    In the Stein and Day Handbook of Magic the author makes a clear distinction between diversion and distraction. From the book’s glossary:

    Diversion – A way of fooling the audience by taking their attention away from something they should not notice.

    Distraction – A violent way of taking the audience’s attention away from something it should not notice.

    I’ve not seen this dissimilarity elsewhere in my reading but assume any skillful magician understands the significance of a subtle change in the size, speed or intensity of their movement. I’m wondering if this distinction might also apply to the manner of handling the therapist employs, and there are two things to consider here.

    Currently there is a discussion amongst the moderators of Soma Simple regarding the effect of the depth of physical intrusion and the consequent response in the insula. I’m wondering if the literature would support the notion that gentle handling would invariably produce a different and more desirable output from the brain. Add to that the way I always speak to my patients gently when I first handle them. This is a diversion according to the world of magic, and I think that the speed and power behind most coercive techniques would be considered a distraction.

    Might this account for the magical nature of certain forms of care?

    Leave a comment:


  • Barrett Dorko
    replied
    Legerdemain

    Legerdemain is French for “lightness of hand” though its definition in English is “an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers.”

    In other words, what simply meant gentleness in one language has come to be associated with trickery in another, and that other is my own.

    The method I’ve chosen for my own manual approach is invariably gentle and commonly thought to be magical in its effect. My students continually look for “the trick” I must employ, and, now that I consider the close cultural relation between lightness of hand and deception, I can appreciate why.

    I work hard to overcome their suspicion regarding my deceptive abilities by speaking of the things science has taught us about the power of awareness and how that awareness can grow within the patient if manual handling doesn’t attempt to do something it can’t (like specifically permanently elongate connective tissue) and instead enhances another’s sensibilities (the work of Frederic Sachs and attention to Weber-Fechner).

    Still, many continue to wonder at my skills rather than appreciate my knowledge; knowledge readily available to them. To the classes I become the magician who immediately explains the method behind the magic. This, of course, is not what they expect when they see some legerdemain, so I become to many a rather odd character and they wonder why I would do such a thing.

    I figure that this is what they’re paying for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barrett Dorko
    replied
    The truly creative mind in any field is no more than this: A human creature born abnormally, inhumanly sensitive. To them a touch is a blow, a sound is a noise…Add to this cruelly delicate organism the overpowering necessity to create…so that without creating something of meaning their very breath is cut off…they are not really alive unless they are creating.

    Pearl Buck

    I’ve long contended that ideomotion is a creative act. After all, it has in common with creative activity uniqueness and origins in internal conversation. I know a bit about writing and can tell you that creative writing surprises the writer as they write it. Similarly, corrective movement is surprising to the one doing it.

    I’ve written of this extensively in Movement and Creation and Movement and Imagination and of its relation to pain relief here and in about a hundred archived posts here and there.

    But there’s more. In An Alchemy of Mind Diane Ackerman writes of creative acts affect us and, in fact, protect us: “Art makes eccentricity safe…the arts teach us about how the brain perceives; they’re forms of knowing. In a sense, artists are ‘neurologists’ who unknowingly study the brain with techniques unique to them.”

    Ackerman goes on to describe her dual interest in the beautiful things she might see and the less attractive chemical makeup of those objects. This is precisely Dawkins’ view in Unweaving the Rainbow. She says that artists have an “easily accessible synesthesia” and that this helps them to “combine unrelated things” much in the same way surrealism does.

    So, what’s this got to do with magic?

    More soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Nari,

    that's exactly what I have been trying to express. I appreciate you and Diane's understanding and patience. Thanks !

    Karie:teeth:

    Leave a comment:


  • nari
    replied
    Hi Karie,

    I think I understand what you are saying; correct me if that is not so.
    The thought of a void after years of satisfying clinical applications is scary; but you have one big advantage over those who simply avoid self-change; you want to learn to fill that void, and gain a better understanding of why you do what you do.

    Re Barrett; when I first "met" him on another forum, I thought: well, here is a bear living in the woods who appears and scares people with a few roars. But what this bear was saying/writing is what got me going. A literary bear who thinks, so he cannot be all ursine-like. If you listen, you will find the void filling up slowly. Someone else can answer your questions if you like, but as long as you listen to the roar (or song) the singer won't cause you any concern. And if you listen to the song in his class, the same applies.

    You might find the 'spots' change without much effort - your perceptions of his spots and yours, too.
    You're not throwing away years of hands-on work; don't think of the how being lost, just think of the why. Then the how follows.

    Nari

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Newman
    replied
    Hi Karie,

    I'd suggest that adding Barrett to your "ignore list" is the most tenable solution to your problem. Coincidently, it's what our profession has done to great effect when experiencing the same problem you describe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    Karie, you can't ask that particular leopard to change his spots for you. It's a self-change project. Nothing wrong with your learning skills, but you will need to take yourself in hand emotionally and not rely on outsiders to "handle" that part of you.

    I've started a new thread that I hope can help.
    Last edited by Diane; 21-02-2007, 09:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barrett Dorko
    replied
    My objections have always been the same, and they have nothing to do with Karie's practice. I simply won't tolerate being told how to behave.

    Too old for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    Karie, I hear you.. I think all this probably boils down to is a touch of the old cognitive dissonance, first brought up for discussion in this group by Jon, the Linkmaster. We've all been there. I can remember being excited by learning that fascia has nerves too - I was still looking in through the wrong (mesodermal) end of the telescope.

    Psst: :secret: By the way, don't worry about Barrett's apparent online curmudgeonliness - in person he seems to harbour no trace of it. I'm sure he'd be glad to see you at a workshop, and you'd learn a lot, even though you'd probably still feel dissonant inside, maybe even more, for awhile.

    Meanwhile, functionally, as a functionalist, you are doing all sorts of good things. All that's needed is a slight readjustment of what "structure"-al system you think is more important to you as a functionalist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barrett Dorko
    replied
    Yea, flock #4.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Diane,

    I'm not sure if this is where I should place this, or if a new thread should be started. I couldn't help but see myself as a fourth group, using the recent analogies. I have always been from the neuro camp and I love to have recently learned that the fascia contains smooth muscle which thus would be innervated, (as an aside). But as I work through constructing what is happening under my hands, I find myself in limbo for lack of a better word. I was planning to take Barrett's course in Madison recently but was turned off when I felt like I was being astrocized for asking some questions on a different thread. Maybe Barrett misinterpreted my line of questioning, maybe many things with respect to communication problems and the filter we all come from as part of our "whole" experiences thus far in life. I love the anatomy work you post here, it is stuff that I easily can immerse myself in. My problem is when I try to move away from constructs that describe what I do and I go to place my hands to manually work, I draw a complete blank. I then fall back to my neuro sensitivity of how I assess and find what I have found before. Again, I try to treat...and then go what?????, and find myself back to my old "hand placements," and then the magic unfolds and the "magic" outcome of greatness occurs and I feel once again back in preschool feeling inept that I can't get through the void. It is asked on this thread how to bring others into what is discussed well here. Well, I have some thoughts on that, since I am in that situation. Is that to be a new thread? I don't know. When one deconstructs major held belief/thought systems one becomes like an infant that needs gentle, contacted, nurturing for learning. This is the part that is hard to find for me with Barrett, I leave myself open and I feel he assumes things about me, and like an infant, I close down from interacting with my outside world. Diane you keep me here and I feel I can trust you to help me deconstruct when I have figured out what I am deconstructing first. (LOL, I hope that makes sense). But, I needed physical contact with Barrett's coursework or anyone else who can present what he is referring to, but I didn't feels safe. Maybe like the polyvagal theory, my cognitive connection gets shut down, and I fall into the autonomic functions and escape. I think I understand what Nari was saying by the division, maybe not. But, if you find a person willing to leave the matrix, or at least entertain it, a nurturing unlearning/relearning process tends to be needed. This happened to the main character in the matrix movie, you couldn't hit him full blast with all the information at once, it would have been to mind-blowing. I'd love to provide other thoughts along this line if that is what I am understanding this thread has evolved to. If a new thread is to be fostered, maybe Diane you can help with how best to start that with what I have said here. I guess to when I alluded to a Wisconsin group, once again I was looking for that physical connection to assist the void I am in, sorry that was also misinterpreted. I tried humor and it didn't work either. I agree this forum is the "ultimate" in communication, but it doesn't help with the manual understanding that physical connection with a mentor provides.

    Peace
    Karie

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    Another thought I've always had about our profession and its internal dis-cohesions, has been the struggle every profession, every walk of life even, seems to have over structuralism versus functionalism. There seems to be some kind of perpetual intrinsic dichotomy here, instead of synchrony or dialectic. Or maybe there isn't and it just feels like there is, to me.

    1. Maybe the apparent dichotomy is an intrinsic human foible based on having two minds inside each head :secret:, two hemispheres that see the world differently and consider it differently and approach it differently.
    2. Maybe it's natural that the PT profession (comprised of hundreds of thousands of individuals kept "unified" by establishing a public perception of "it"-"self") would be no different in this regard than any other.
    3. Maybe it's just my own battle inside my own head that I'm always observing and (yikes ) projecting.

    Loosely, I'd say that in PT the neuro pole has always been the functional pole, and the ortho pole has always been the structural pole. Which may shed some light on why historically men have gravitated to ortho rather than neuro - they like to work with "stuff" more than with "people", or at least so goes the myth..

    Well, hello, turns out there's enough "stuff" in the nervous system to keep everyone enthralled for decades to come, enough to turn even the most entrenched structuralist into the kindest nicest softest functionalist the world has ever seen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    I think we are in a third flock. There have always been two flocks, neuro and ortho, in our profession, usually flying roughly parallel but apart. Maybe we are part of a thin bridge between them, a thickening along with but distinct from other "thickenings", like the noi group for example. We don't fly quite the same way as any of the others.

    Eric, glad you are a growing tip.
    Maybe you and all the other tips can grow right out of this PT matrix Jason has alluded to.

    The way to provide a new profile (all the better to mentor successfully) is to create a new profile by organizing into a distinct group with distinct standards (i.e., a group that stands for some-thing or things that are distinct).

    By the way, I went back in and added a footnote to that historical post.
    Last edited by Diane; 21-02-2007, 07:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X