Hello Reda,
Thank you for your thought provoking insight and informative response. The
intellectual property information is very interesting to me. Are SI or
Rolfing patented techniques, if there is such a thing as a "technique
patent?" I did not see my inquiry as necessarily bold, just as one
bodyworker to her piers, but I can see I rubbed some the wrong way. It's
obvious I am not seen as a "pier" since I come from a different modality.
Funny, my experience of Rolfing twenty some years ago is what got me
interested in bodywork in the first place. Maybe it's about time for your
community to have a bit of a shake up!!

Just an observation--all the postings since my first inquiry have been
written TO ME. There hasn't been any cross emailing like, "hey so and so, how
ya doing?" It seems like communication is lacking among the members of this
group and (excuse me for making a wild guess) I would hate to think that the
community as a whole is so tight lipped with eachother and afraid to
challenge the "gospel." When things are laid out in black and white further
growth and development are totally stunted. It keeps things secret, static
and stagnant.

Your use of the word cult also came to my mind as I wrote my initial
rebuttals to what you so eloquently called the "cold shower." I refrained
from using it because I am all too familiar with cults, having been raised in
one. I also didn't want to really piss somebody off. However, I've run into
cult-like behavior among bodyworkers in the past and it's just strange. When
someone thinks they know more or better or the ONLY way to do something it
smacks of so much dogmatism. I like to approach what I do in life and work
with a beginner's mind. Keeping such an attitude allows room for expansion
(albeit sometimes with a bit of a fuss), which helps. With this approach I
sometimes come off as a fool, but who cares? Sometimes when I ask questions
people treat me as if I don't know anything. Maybe it's my approach or maybe
it's who I ask. I don't know and it really doesn't matter. I like to share
information both ways.

Why don't you be the first to write a book? Your points are absolutely valid
and critical to the state of the world. Or would your community "shun" you
for being so bold. It sounds like that might be what you'd be up against. I
hope not.

I haven't been able to differentiate or fully assimilate how the NMT method I
am studying is similar to SI at this point other than the obvious technical
modalities, which I know as "myofascial release" methods. Perhaps that is all
I will find, but I doubt it. Pelvic stabilization is the first priority in
the St. John method. Using gait analysis and structural measurements are
others. I am only on about page 30 in Ida Rolf's book, so it will be a good
exercise for me to give this point much more consideration while I read on.

On to check out the Hellerwork sight,
Marie


In a message dated 6/26/02 12:37:08 PM, redaelandaloussi@... writes:

>Hi Marie,
>
>Let me apologize for the cold shower you received, I am glad to see
>that not all feel the same about your inquiry. Please realize that
>you are the first one to submit such a request and you are touching
>some hot issues and some soft spots...
>Frankly, both your original inquiry and some of your frustrations
>about our community are legitimate.
>
>Henry wrote:
><<
>or perhaps you might look into buying one of the books on the market
>that answer those kinds of questions precisely. theyre much cheaper
>than the schools! but i wonder...why is it you want to know?...
>-henry
>>>
>I am curious about specific references myself. Perhaps Henry can
>clarify his thoughts...
>
>To put things in perspective, the protection of intellectual property
>versus the freedom to copy and access knowledge is an old debate. In
>1997, Ross ANDERSON, a cryptograph at Cambridge University raised the
>issue in very modern terms. His words are more eloquent than I can
>rephrase so here is a link to his rationale:
>http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/eternity/node1.html#SECTION0001000
>0000000000000
>(make sure you copy the entire link with all the zeros at the end,
>and no spaces)
>
>More on the issue:
>http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2000/foth000814.htm
>
>Ross Anderson's Eternity Service - concept
>Whith Gutenberg copying and distributing 'copyrighted' material and
>other material became possible (including the Bible and revolutionary
>philosophies as well). Gutenberg's vulgarisation of printing allowed
>mankind to access knowledge. This in turn allowed the Reformation,
>the Renaissance and later Revolutions.
>Today, Copyright protection has swung back to a before-Gutenberg
>state. The law, the police, and governmments all protect intellectual
>property to a level that is very close to how the Bible was 'owned'
>by the Curch before Gutenberg. At least, right after Guntenberg, even
>if an author could be prosecuted and killed, his/her work could live
>on: they couldn't burn it all anymore; there were too many copies.
>Today, with the informatiuon technology, the law can actuall shutdown
>web sites, prosecute Internet Service Providers, and make knowledge
>disapear from man-kind's reach.
>The solution that Ross Anderson conceptualized is based on anonymacy,
>multiplication of servers, high encryption level, so that it becomes
>very hard even for the powerfull to delete knowledge from mankinds
>access. Later AT&T Research Labs and other labs actually implemented
>some tests. This was such a danger to big copyright owners such as
>Microsoft, affraid to see its software freely available, that
>Microsoft offerred millions of $ to 'save AT&T Broadband back in
>December 2001, when I looked into the subject. (I personally suspect
>this 'donation' was not out of Bill Gate's good heart)
>The AT&T implementation of Ross Anderson's Eternity Service is
>actually called 'Publius'. Why is it important:
><<
>Publius is a Web publishing system that is highly resistant to
>censorship and provides publishers with a high degree of anonymity.
>Publius was the pen name used by the authors of the Federalist
>Papers, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. This
>collection of 85 articles, published pseudonymously in New York State
>newspapers form October 1787 through May 1788, was influential in
>convincing New York voters to ratify the proposed United States
>constitution.
>>>
>source: http://cs1.cs.nyu.edu/waldman/publius.html
>
>Some problems:
>- with the good comes the bad; if it becomes impossible to prevent
>anything from being published, copied, and accessed, then freedom of
>speach is granted, but child pornography sites, bomb making sites,
>etc., become virtually unstoppable.
>The society is not quite prepared for free access, although it has
>some means to respond. Publius servers can be made inaccessible on a
>national scale, prosecuting authors,... We may be talking about the
>next intellectual revolution for freedom of speach, but it won't be
>without a fight from the establishment, conservative coallitions,
>major copyright lobbies, etc.
>And of course Napster and other newer versions which expand beyond
>just music are yet just a beginning.
>
>
>Marie,
>
>How dos it relate to your observations?
>
>Well yes our society is organized and managed by its leaders as a
>secret society, and yes we do have gurus in place that hold on to the
>intellectual property that was passed on to them. Yes there is an
>underlying phylosophy installed in our 'clan' that is protective of
>that intellectual property. To the point where the disciples of Ida
>P. ROLF are not writing the books that would answer your question and
>more such as a way to self-learn Structural Integration in detail.
>
>Certainly, on the surface there are some seamingly 'good reasons',
>like making sure that the know how is passed on 'properly', with
>appropriate training passed on from word to mouth and hand to hand:
>protecting the 'integrity of our recipe' (that is really the only
>reason that is given).
>However it only takes to scratch that surface very little to see how
>superficial such a reasoning is. You and I know that eventually such
>books will be available. Can anyone tell me honestly that it is
>better to have such books bublished generations later, than as soon
>as possible, as little time as possible after the death of our
>founder?
>
>What would actually preserve the recipe best:
>- Waiting until nobody can write it correctly, because it will be
>2nd, 3rd or Nth hand information and knowledge?
>- writing it here and nnow, and make sure there is something serious
>and as close to the real thing as possible to pass on to the next
>generations?
>
>Of course inevitably, when that question is answerred, one realizes
>how little vision our leaders have. One realize the kind of secret
>society we are associated with, and the kinds of gurus we have,
>unwilling to do the right thing for prosperity. Instead our gurus
>have transmitted a very classical 'cult' model to us, with all the
>things that go wrong with cults, including dogmatism, including
>unwise financial greed, including not being allowed to question such
>leadership directly...
>
>So Marie,
>
>Please believe me when I wish you good luck in finding the
>information you requested.
>I may have some objections, such as that without more explaination,
>the sequence will not be nearly as useful as a full training (as
>others mentioned), and of course that having access to the sequence
>doesn't mean that you will be doing Structural Integration (as you
>mentioned).
>However, I strongly believe that anyone should have access to our
>trade 'secrets'. You are right, it is simply not human to hide
>something so good for mankind.
>
>If on your way, you find interesting material that is in writing, or
>on the web, please let me know. I am particularily intereted in
>listing on my web site serious descriptions of the work, in any form,
>http://idaprolf.org , so that others can learn without being
>eliminated by the financial, geographical, and other barriers.
>
>One should be able to learn whatever one can, how ever much one wants.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Reda EL ANDALOUSSI
>http://idaprolf.org