Eli,
I have been watching the back and forth of postings and Eli your
introduction, question, and description of a 3-session has me wondering. I am
not sure that I understand what you have been doing from your description.
As a new practitioner you might not realize how much some practitioners
bristle at untrained people coming along claming to do some form of structural
integration work where when you see what they are actually doing they in fact
have no idea what this body of thought really represents. Don't misunderstand
me here I am not trying to imply this about you. I am alerted though with how
you describe how you understand what you are doing.
Starting with what you described as a "3-session series", "essentially a
8-9-10", is very different from how I learned to understand and practice this
work. I think of the last three sessions, the 8-9-10, in terms of integration
of movement made available in the earlier seven sessions. Understanding what
integration really meant actually took me years of observation and continued
inquire to figure out. I found those hours to be the most difficult to actually
master. Definitely not a starting point in my experience. Doctor Rolf's ten
session recipe gives a practitioner a framework to practice and learn from. The
significance and ramifications of structural integration were much bigger than
what I could comprehend from the beginning.
What you refer to as "girdle-girdle-spine" implies that you are identifying
a known equation of some sort. This medium of communication, the internet,
certainly leaves a lot to be misconstrued but the way you use these terms
implies something that you expect we all share.
These titles "3-session" or "girdle-girdle-spine" can be short hand for
describing commonly shared understanding or they can be labels that impede
further inquire and learning. I can tell you that I don't share this shorthand.
Not in the way you have been using it here anyway. Can you better articulate
what you understand about what you are trying to accomplish in your first three
sessions?
Red Wolf


kinesis@... wrote:

> Dear Eric - KMI practitioners learn a 3-session series (essenitally 8-9-10 -
> girdle-girdle-spine) in their 'auditing' (Part 1) phase. Eli will soon be
> in my 10-session 'practitioning' phase.
>
> Dear Eli - Reach through (i could almost say between if that doesn'r sound
> too siry-fairy) the fat to reach the underlying leotard and myofascial
> layers. Make her longer. Do not throw her out a window. More superficial
> tissues will generally normalize in the months after a series. For sure,
> some binge-purge eaters will have compromised the fascial net of the adipose
> layer, sometimes beyond restoration. Look and think and intend-invite below
> the fat layer, and then give it time to rearrange.
>
> Regards, T
>
> bostonmassage wrote:
>
> > Hello all, I (Eli) am new to this group and looking forward to
> > learning and sharing lots...
> > I am a beginner KMI practitioner (taken the first workshops)
> > practicing lots of the basic 3-part series. Love the work and so do
> > my clients.
> >
> > My latest (haven't started yet) is a middle aged woman who has been
> > through massive weight fluctuations in her life (5'6" between 115 to
> > 245, now about 160ish?). She seems like a pretty straightforward 3-
> > part session; however, I am concerned about working through her fat
> > layers. It almost seems as if the structural tissues organizing her
> > adipose layers have been overstretched. The fat around her arms,
> > thighs, and to a lesser extent, waist acts like a half filled
> > balloon, sloshing around and pooling on the table around her
> > structurally stable musculature. I'm concerned that doing deep,
> > broad structural work over these compromised tissues might exaggerate
> > the problem (i.e. stretch the balloon out even more).
> > Seeing and working on this kind of tissue has re-awakened an old
> > concern of doing structural work on the obese. Could this work push
> > structurally sound fat layers toward this extreme? Might our fat
> > clients stand straighter but sag a little lower? (Is there net height
> > gain?) I think the origin of my unease was a picture I saw on the
> > web of a severely obese woman who jumped out of a window. It seemed
> > as if the impact completely sheared the structural stability of her
> > superficial tissues. What I saw was a moderately obese woman lying
> > within a pool of her own skin/fat. Quite disturbing.... (Hope I'm
> > not sharing too much)
> > Any comments would be appreciated, thanks. Eli
> >
> >
> > Community email addresses:
> > Post message: Structure_Integrator@onelist.com
> > Subscribe: Structure_Integrator-subscribe@onelist.com
> > Unsubscribe: Structure_Integrator-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > List owner: Structure_Integrator-owner@onelist.com
> >
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > http://www.onelist.com/community/Structure_Integrator
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: Structure_Integrator@onelist.com
> Subscribe: Structure_Integrator-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: Structure_Integrator-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: Structure_Integrator-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/Structure_Integrator
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/