No announcement yet.

We're looking for a movement

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

  • #16
    Cory, I like your reference towards trusting the organism to be benign and useful to the greater good. I think that is important, especially when it's a newly evolved organism still feeling its oats.

    What is frightening about joining the organism as it grows?
    Perhaps, a concern that there will be criticism which may be hard to defend, especially in a PT world where there isn't much evidence around that can be staunchly defended against any challenge.

    Perhaps, too, a cautious approach is safer: read, learn, think but stay out of any challenges. That could mean no posting. Even a nicely put challenge may disrupt the carpet under one's feet. If one is looking for a change of carpet, however, then it doesn't matter in the least that shibboleths are tumbling. No-one can be shaken by lurking. It's safe.

    OK, there are some reasons why folks lurk.

    All I can suggest is that entering anthills or deep oceans or into whatever other metaphors have emerged over 3.5 years, is an experience well worth any perceived risks. After all, if one doesn't like the heat, metaphorically or otherwise, one can always leave the kitchen.
    But at least, go into the kitchen, open a window and have a talk with a few chefs. (Who, by the way, still burn steaks and curdle milk occasionally)



    • #17
      I think that like the simulations in the active essay I posted to above, the rules of engagement can be hard to decipher at first. Fear regarding the uncertainty about where joining in might take you, and for how long, probably keep many to the sidelines. Thats' where either one has to have the courage to join in or has come to the realization that there are no negative consequences of just joining in anywhere. The simulation where you get to pick your own squares is exactly like what happens to a thread here. Some fizzle out quickly, others last a little longer, but I've yet to see one achieve a state of perpetual motion, yet. If you vastly expand the size of the black grid, and remember that if one person starts a thread somewhere, and another starts a thread somewhere else, and so on, there's every possibility they could interact in ways that could create something interesting and useful to the whole. Participation is the key. Unlike the simulations, the rules here don't change, although they may be impossible to define.
      I hope I've interpreted the significance of this correctly!
      Eric Matheson, PT


      • #18
        There passage from Modelling social systems as complex: Towards a social simulation meta-model suggests passive interactors are in fact an important aspect of the social system.

        It has been said that humans are creatures of habit. Habit, be it behavioural or conceptual (paradigms) may constrain the variability of interaction or serve to reduce the degrees of freedom. Habit development, norms, rituals and conventions may serve to reduce the density of interconnection (to collapse a potential many onto a few dimensions) in social systems and therefore become a basis for control of the dynamic characteristics. The more 'norms' constrain interaction, the more stable the society (and conversely the less adaptive or responsive to perturbation). Significantly, these patterns do not require a prospective forward looking logic to become established. As Macy (1998, p. 3) notes "The rules that secure social order emerge not from the shadow of the future but from the lessons of the past". Macy links social 'norms' to genetic inheritance but there is no need for this, cultural transmission and selection will suffice. Indeed the stability and self-reproducing character of many norms, rituals and habits of action constitute a lineage of a kind (Plotkin 1994). Social routines such as these will continue to propagate to the extent that they help the social system of which they are a part, to remain viable. They are, however, maintained on the basis of past contribution rather than prospective relevance. Importantly, the lack of need to invoke rational foresight implies no need for conscious action as a basis for explanation of co-operative interaction and regulative behaviour in social systems. Some individuals may choose to adopt the 'norm', perhaps seeing its social value, but 'blind following' will serve the same purpose. Further if the normative strategy is robust, such 'blind following' need imply no weakness nor diminish the viability of the social system it helps to integrate. What we as observers call 'norms' may be emergent patterns which stabilise social dynamics but which themselves arise from those dynamics. In other words they are an emergent self-regulatory mechanism. This is important for, as Macy points out, altruism as examined through analytic game theory, implies the conscious and rational selection of a "...prudent detour in the pursuit of self interest" (Macy 1998, p. 4). Relaxing the necessity of rationality in order to explain either selfishness or altruism makes possible a broader explanatory framework. Co-operation does not imply altruism (Castelfranchi 1998) as it may be used for selfish or altruistic motives. Routines of co-operation (and for that matter of non-cooperation or hostility) constitute means for regulating the overall stability of social structures and systems of societies. The in-group/out-group phenomena serves to break social networks into 'patches' (Kauffman & Macready 1995), while habitual, or conscious cooperation between such groups serve to maintain linkages of varying strength to maintain some overall coherence and stability as well as adaptability.
        my bolds
        Eric Matheson, PT


        • #19
          All wonderful insights into the problems people have with joining in.

          Let's go back to the actual practice of therapy.

          There’s a little study by Libet, conducted at various times in the 60s that really threw a wrench into the previously held notion of “free will,” and, not surprisingly, Libet used movement to demonstrate that what we’d always presumed to be true simply wasn’t.

          In Blackmore’s Consciousnes – An Introduction the author uses the title “The Half-Second Delay in Consciousness” for the chapter concerning this. I’d recommend a careful look at this book or this site.

          Basically the deal is this. The brain needs a relatively long period of activation to elicit awareness of the things we do. This means that our decision to move precedes our conscious awareness of our decision to do so. Our brain moves us and our mind just comes along for a ride though we have the sense that the mind made the decision first, but it is the other way around.

          This, of course, is a little unsettling for those of us who are trying to choreograph an exercise regimen for our patients. We hope for the best, but “the best” movement for pain relief is the movement we would choose instinctively, and without the interference common with planning and consideration of goals – to say nothing of how little control we have over such things.

          Maybe the movement we’re looking for exists in this space between the brain and the illusion of the mind’s control that Libet demonstrates.

          Maybe when these movements emerge in sufficient numbers we’ll find the therapy we seek.
          Barrett L. Dorko


          • #20
            Fear of the smallest things

            Consider Pirsig’s classic Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values, a book I’ve owned for years and never read. Actually, I have a few more of these. Anyway, according to this entry on Wikipedia “The book features two types of personalities, those who are interested mostly in gestalts (romantic viewpoints, e.g., Zen), the other who needs to know details, the inner workings, mechanics…”

            Right away I’m thinking of those of us interested in the deep model and the others who want only to understand and consider what they see on the surface – the Gestalt, which is another word describing the consequences of emergence. Pirsig makes it clear that both views are necessary for “a higher quality of life.” I agree, and I’m sure the author would be thrilled with that.

            Our willingness to not only reflect upon the smallest details of movement and brain function but to sense them in the patient as we handle their skin separates us from those who don’t care about such things and want only to measure the gross mesodermal changes they feel are relevant and easily described in an outcome study.

            But every phenomenon begins as a small, small thing, and its eventual nature is vitally dependent upon what that thing is and what it’s capable of doing. We sense an inability to both measure and control the things that form the basis of our world, and a patient in pain - in our hands - is one of those things. Many therapists fear it.

            Where has this fear led us?

            More soon.
            Barrett L. Dorko


            • #21
              I'm working on a post titled "A fear of small things" that isn't yet complete but I thought I'd ask a question here while it's forming in my head.

              If you had a choice, would you prefer to be attacked by a relatively large animal or by a colony of ants? Why?

              Take your time, the answer isn't all that obvious.
              Last edited by Barrett Dorko; 19-09-2007, 04:25 PM.
              Barrett L. Dorko


              • #22

                Feldenkrais spoke of choice. At one point I think he said that if we only have one way of doing someting then we have a compulsion. With two comes a dilemma but with three we actually have a choice. Barrett, it looks like you have given us a dilemma. I guess my ansewer would depend on the speed with which the large animal could travel and the confines of my environment.



                • #23
                  In either scenario are there any chances of escaping or is death implied?
                  Eric Matheson, PT


                  • #24

                    Great answer. Always a good idea to include some of Feldenkrais' insights.

                    Perhaps I need to frame the question more carefully. I'm not especially interested in the consequences of the attack or the specific circumstances or the surroundings - I'm interested in your first thoughts about fear and the origins of that fear.
                    Barrett L. Dorko


                    • #25
                      Neither. :thumbs_do
                      HumanAntiGravitySuit blog
                      Neurotonics PT Teamblog
                      Canadian Physiotherapy Pain Science Division (Archived newsletters, paincasts)
                      Canadian Physiotherapy Association Pain Science Division Facebook page
                      WCPT PhysiotherapyPainNetwork on Facebook
                      Neuroscience and Pain Science for Manual PTs Facebook page

                      SomaSimple on Facebook

                      "Rene Descartes was very very smart, but as it turned out, he was wrong." ~Lorimer Moseley

                      “Comment is free, but the facts are sacred.” ~Charles Prestwich Scott, nephew of founder and editor (1872-1929) of The Guardian , in a 1921 Centenary editorial

                      “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you, but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." ~Don Marquis

                      "In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists" ~Roland Barth

                      "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one."~Voltaire


                      • #26

                        Not an option here.
                        Barrett L. Dorko


                        • #27
                          Barrett, cool question. Takes me back to the days of philosophy classes, and "would you tear the legs off a roach for $1000.00?"

                          First impression, I would choose the one large animal. I could see the threat easier, hopefully making it easier to size up the threat and fight a single foe.
                          Not every jab needs to be answered with a haymaker. - Rod Henderson


                          • #28
                            One large animal.
                            Ants, though very small, have threat advantages in terms of numbers, tenacity, cleverness.



                            • #29
                              Over lunch I was able to get another's ansewer in response to you query, Barrett. Her response was dependent upon her assumptions about her death at said hands of ants or large animal. Her answer was dependent upon the presumed feelings she felt she may have during her upcoming death. My answer or lack there of was in regards to surviving the attack and therefore, seeking of more information. Erik's answer/question is quite relevant here. I think the origins of one's fears are often dependent upon one's perceived abiltiy to change or alter the threat value of the percieved situation or in the abiltiy to accept.



                              • #30
                                I'm interested in your first thoughts about fear and the origins of that fear.
                                Going on this, my gut tells me I'd vote to be attacked by the ants. Probably an illusory sense of being able to have more control over the behaviour of the ants than the largish animal. The emergent properties of the animal are more threatening than those of an ant or its colony.

                                I'd be more afraid of a tidal wave than rain shower for the same reasons I suppose.
                                Eric Matheson, PT