Letters

Dear ......... Thank you for your letter of the 13th of November, 1991 - the only "echo" to my letter to Mr. Hayes till now, and probably - for ever. All the years since I began to criticize what happens in the field of the F.M. Alexander Technique, nobody had the courage to answer my letter. I sent copies of my letter to Mr. Hayes (who did not reply as well), and to most of the Alexander Schools recognized by S.T.A.T. - no response, no reaction, no "echo". I appreciate your honesty and the readiness to expose yourself, in relation to the A.T. and your readiness to admit and accept that all your experiences you got through your training in the A.T. were wrong. I rarely met people who were trained as A.T. teachers who were ready to admit that what they were learning to teach as the A.T., did not match the priniciples of the A.T., as described in F.M.A.'s books. I know at least two of them who stopped teaching what they were trained to teach, realizing that it is a dummy A.T.; all this after spending a fortune and some years in vain. Most of them continue to teach whatever they teach, finding excuses and compromising with their conscience. These people ignore the fact that on a wrong basis - wrong means-whereby - only a wrong way can develop. I think that one of the basic mistakes made by people who begin to learn the A.T. in order to teach it, is that they see it as a new career, or a new profession - means-whereby to earn living. It is not a profession, one can't make a career through teaching it (unless you cheat people by teaching a dummy A.T. - as it is taught nowadays). The A.T. is a way, a process which can be taught by a person who applies it, as a whole, in his daily life; a person who has the creative conception of how to transmit, to convey it to others - not by words (spoken or written), not in groups or classes which contain many students, who are not in a close contact with the teacher during the whole class - but through direct contact of the teacher's hands, that are the agency of his own application of the Process, and in a small class of maximum three students. And indeed, the unceasing flow of employment of the Conscious Control is the core of the Process, the Way. lt does not help to read Alexander's books (by the way - I never managed to read "The Universal Constant in Living" till the end ! ) unless you are properly "directed" in practice and have the total experience of the Process - practical experience which does not miss any of the components which in combination form the A.T. as a whole. Then Alexander's books may give a stimulus to the practical experience. Otherwise, reading the books is merely an intellectual masturbation, which encourages and stimulates illusions to be rooted in reality. And you reached the right conclusion (in this respect, reading the books helped you) concerning the existing split between the real A.T. (as discribed in his books) and the A.T., as it is taught and trained nowadays. Indeed, stopping-inhibiting-neutralizing the habitual reactions to stimuli, which are originated in our subconscious guidance and control is a primary "must", if we accept the fact that without the application of the "Inhibition" (simultanuously with all other components; as F.M.A. said: "All together."...) there is no chance to activate the new conditions for the chosen reaction, via the Conscious Control. As those who pretend to teach the A.T. are "End-gainers", as they ever were, they look for results, for success; they have to do the right, to be right - not to be aware of the wrong and neutralize it, to follow a way, to be involved in a process - and that what they practice is, indeed, what they teach. This is the reason why you rarely had the experience of the "Inhibition" if you had it at all. Because the "Inhibition" is an activity of the mind which is registered in the whole body; it is not confined to muscular reaction, to visible movement. And indeed one can't give others the practil experience of the "Inhibition" if one never had a real practical experience of it, and therefpre does not have the creative conception of it. What are "Directions" in general? F.M.A. gives his definition in a foot note, in the first chapter of "The Use of the Self', but did you ever give a real consideration to this subject? My experience proved me that there is no common denominator between those who studied with F.M.A. himself. Something went wrong with F.M.A. teaching how to teach. He didn't give his students enough directions, enough direct guidance, enough directed control. He didn't realize that their mental attitude didn't match his own, was not tuned to his own... So what are "Directions"? Here I'll not give you verbal description, I'll not explain it intelectually. The best thing I can do is to give you practical experience through my hands, as I experience and understand it, and complete it with verbal instructions - if it will be necessary. I don't think it is necessary to be enthusiastic or absolutely enthusiastic about the A.T. One has to be realistic, without expectations, without ends (End-gaining), to see the Way, to make decisions, to follow and stick to these decisions - in spite of difficulties, "black spots" and "dark tunnels" along the way. My experience taught me that enthusiasm, as we know it, is connected with uncontrolled emotions and in relation to this I would suggest you to read again the sixth chapter, second part, of the "Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual". There is no doubt that a certain mental attitude is necessary for the application of the Way-Process in life in general. F.M.A. emphasises it in his books repeatedly. Indeed the application requires, besides a certain mental attitude, or within this certain mental attitude: Awareness (not attention, which habitually is connected with concentration) - which is the Conscious Control, energies, and decision to commit oneself in something which is alien to our habitual social form in life. It doesn't mean that we have to be different, or to go against, or to antagonize, or to do the opposite (as the opposite of wrong is wrong); we just have to be aware of what is wrong and of the wrong, and to inhibit (neutralize) it. Then we have the chance to be our real selves within the human society, as it is. Our habitual patterns of behaviour in general (and not in movements only - the prevailing conception in A.T. community nowadays) are rooted in our itlogical, unnatural fears. These fears are the ancestors of our "End-gaining" approach in life. This "End-gaining" is a virtuoso of camouflaging itself. Therefore it is not easy to deal with it; but it is possible, if one actively consents to do so. You asked me to answer your letter and I do so. As a matter of fact you can find my answer in the letter to Mr. Hayes, and all my other writings and... in your own letter ! And if you really want to experience my work, your decision to do so will "inhibit" all the excuses and "reasons" not to realize your wish. Just come. All the best   Sincerely Noam Renen

Dear ...... Thank you for your letter of the 23rd ofJanuary, 1992. My answer follows. It is not me who sent you the article by Ruth Borchard "Upright Man". I never read it, never saw it. I don't think such an article may add to the practical understanding of the F.M.A.T.; because in the practical application of the Way, the Process, to deal with the subject of the above article, or any article concerning anatomy, physiology, or any similar subject, doesn't give any practical understanding of the F.M.A.T. As a matter of fact, it distracts us from the Way. F.M. Alexander said: "They may feach you anatomy and physioiogy till they are black in fhe face - you will still have this to face, sticking to a decision against your habif of life ". This fact shouldn't be ignored, otherwise we don't deal anymore with the core of F.M.A.T., and then the F.M.A.T. becomes a decoration for something else, which I call: Dummy F.M.A.T. Yes, that is right that many (if not most) of those who join the teachers training schools for the F.M.A.T. see it as a "spring board" for a career for earning money; an "important", "great" way to do so. The F.M.A.T. became "IN", fashionable, and this is a fertile ground for charlatanism - and that's what happens! You can find a description of the F.M.A.T., as it is practiced nowadays, in Hans Christian Andersen's tale: "The King's New Clothes ". And if it happens that some of those who were trained as F.M.A.T. teachers begin to doubt their teaching and their way, they bury their doubts in a deep corner of their brain. Very few have the courage to adrnit that they are wrong and stop teaching. The prevailing reaction in this case is to find explanations, excuses, justification, and reasons to continue to act, to teach and to cheat - themsetves and others. Money is more important than truth. To be "important", "great", "famous", at all cost, to nourish their Ego, their habitual reactions to stimuli. This is the common activity among the community of the "teachers" of the F.M.A.T., instead of "inhibiting" this activity, and to be honest and humble, and clear the way to the real Self to emerge. Can you notice the unduly excited fear reflexes, uncontrolled emotions, and fixed prejudices in the behaviour of those who consider thernselves as teachers of the F.M.A.T.? But, of course, if you ask them, they are above it.... As common civilized human beings we are not totally integrated with the Principles; we are not perfect. It is not an excuse not to follow the Way, not to be involved in the timeless-endless Process. To follow the way to perfection - by the application of the Constructive Conscious Control, and by "inhibiting" the wrong - is a reason not to stop the constant involvement in the Process along the Way. Concerning F.M.A. himself, indeed he was a pioneer, he was an explorer, he had a certain logic, a certain mental attitude that guided him to his discoveries. He had the drive to look for a way to help himself. He didn't know where he will "land". He didn't know, what he will see in the mirror. But his "descendants" "know" already everything about the F.M.A.T., its principles, applications, and "all the rest". But, as you yourself realized, "something is rotten in the F.M.A.T.'s kingdom". I still think and consider that it is possible to convey and transmit the process of the F.M.A.T. to others, providing we apply the Process in ourselves in our daiiy life activities. Then the hands convey the "directions", as they function in us. In teaching we have to deal with the person-pupil as a whole entity, not with his body and movements. We have to be aware that the body is the mirror of the brain activity, and that we deal with the use of the self, as a whole. It is wrong to try to deal with the use of the body. As a matter of fact such thing doesn't exist; but all those, who teach the F.M.A.T. and write about it, deal with the body. The real F.M.A.T. doesn't deal with movements, with "how to move right". One has just to read his books with open mind and not conditioned one, and then one can see the Whole and not through the personal conditioned "key-hole". Yes F.M. Alexander made a career out of his discoveries, but it was a by-product of it, and not an act of "End-gaining". Concerning Margaret Goldie, all my students of the first lot I trained, and some of my pupils had lessons from her. She refused to give me lessons. But from what I "read" in those I sent to her, after the lessons she gave them, my impression was not positive at all. It seems to me that if she ever had a creative mind of herself, it died when Mr.Alexander (the way she refers to him) died. Patrick Macdonald could produce very clear and strong "Directions", in his good days. His trouble was that he had false conception of the Conscious Control, as it is expressed in his book: "The Alexander Technique As I see It", page 28, and in his life. The Little Man (a term of Wilhelm Reich) took over the control of his mind. Bill Wiliams used to say: "We had (in the early 60's) the best of him ". And concerning F.M.A., it seems that he was not a good pedagogue, and he failed to choose the right people for his training courses. It seems that in this respect he was naive, and his judgement didn't "consult" the Conscious Control. I think it is not a bad idea to write not only to Carrington, but to the editor of the Alexander Journal. Let us see the reactions and excuses ... And above all - make the step, come for real practical experience - it is better than written and spoken words. Sincerely Noam Renen