Hi Dameron,

Thank you for your response. I agree that there are many practitioners who,
with a little information, will bastardize a theory or technique. I have seen
it myself many times with many modalities. I avoid it at all costs on a
personal level, sometimes to my detriment. As my first posting explained, I
have had the ten series and I have had advanced rolfing. I just didn't
remember the sequence of the treatments. This is an inquiry based on nothing
more than a thirst for knowledge and to look at the connections present in
what I am currently studying, which is St. John's NMT. I find personally that
I learn best through a complex method of connecting the dots. I like to study
that which seems dissimilar and find the similarities. For some reason, this
method helps me fully integrate what I have learned and helps me REMEMBER it,
which is not always easy for me!:) Knowledge from one modality assists with
integrating other modalities, at least for me. I am reading a book by Dr.
Rolf now and am amazed at the likeness to which it relates to my work in NMT,
and I am also very relieved that she takes many things to the deeper level
that I have found lacking in other texts. She has a gift of explaining things
in an easy to understand way. Perhaps after I finish this particular training
I will endeavor out to pursue Rolfing. I am not sure. But thank you for your
response and for not attacking me the way a couple people here have.

Regards,
Marie

In a message dated 6/26/02 6:53:53 AM, dameronm@... writes:

>on Wed, Jun 26, 2002, tartarean@... said something like:
>
>>Tell me, what do you have to lose by sharing some terribly *basic*
>>information with another professional bodyworker? I belong to several
>lists
>>of this nature and have always received and given information freely.
>I
>>couldn't imagine saying to someone "don't ask me that--go take a class
>if you
>>want to know what I know. How dare you for asking." I feel it helps the
>
>>profession when others are aware and informed. What hurts the profession
>is
>>ignorance. If this is the gist of this list, cloaked in a shroud of secrecy
>
>>and if this sort of arrogance is a common attitude among practitioners
>of
>>structural integration, it's no wonder it's still a little known practice.
>
>>This is unfortunate since it is capable of doing so much good.
>>
>>Marie
>>
>
>
>Hi there!
> Yes, i'm afraid that this attitude is more prevalent than i'd like
>to
>admit at times. I think part of it stems from long history: both of a bit
>of irritated pride around the legitimacy and acceptance of our work, and
>many, many people asking questions similar to yours, getting their
>answers, and then going out and saying "Oh, I do that rolfing stuff." (Or
>even, "Oh, I think i'll open a school to teach it!")
> I think another issue is the basic difference in perspective between
>structural integration and massage as a whole. The different context
>underlying the language used can make miscommunication easy.
> The best way to bridge some of this, (if you're interested) might be
>to go and experience a 10-series. This would give you a much more
>concrete understanding than any recipie ever could; I've seen it happen
>time and again, even with my LMT clients. "Oh, *that's* what you mean by
>______."
> Hope this is useful.
>
>

Cheers,
>
>

Dameron
>
>