Hi Marie,

Yes I am sometimes provoking, and I also sometimes regret, especially
considering what this particular forum represents. This is the 1st
historical place where graduates from various schools of SI meet and
discuss. In this regard it represents the avant-garde of open spirit
in our community. Even if I suspect some really disapprove my ideas,
or perhaps simply the passion I put into them, they generally have
the appreciated warm sense of letting me be who I am. It doesn't make
things happen but it is freedom of speech and that is something.

Also when I talk about our gurus in such negative ways, it really
applies to some more than others. Joseph Heller with the Client
Handbook (detailed, free, online) and Ed Maupin with the Structural
Metaphor (very insightful) have also long proven their anti-guru
spirit, by making available inside `secrets', although we can hardly
talk about a complete revealing.

Generally our community is cautious that passing on written material
does not convey the essence of the work. I support this position, but
I will let others say it better.

I was also trained in Neuro Muscular Therapy prior to my SI training,
not the Paul St. John method, at the Boulder School of Massage
Therapy. Integration is not the only thing that differs from NMT to
SI. The techniques themselves in SI have different intentions and
vectors, work is performed on the fascia primarily, and mostly SI is
clearly non-symptomatic.
There are some great advantages in that non-symptomatic approach;
there are also some drawbacks.

I still value highly the `Myofascial Pain and Dysfunction Syndrome,
the Trigger Point Manual' (Travell and Simmons). This is still a
technical `bible' to me, or rather an encyclopedia of Neuromuscular
symptoms and strategies, giving a deep understanding of many muscular
problems, including sciatica, migraines, common cardiac symptoms,
tinitus, menstrual problems, digestive problems, and the list goes on
and on. This book helps identify directly responsible muscles, track
down chain reactions, behavioral patterns, help find optimum stretch
positions, corrective education etc. Without such a book and a deep
study of it SI is often operating blindly, without knowing its own
fuller potential, without knowing what SI may be good for, in the
absence of extensive experience (and even then).

Why am I saying this? As Henry humbly admits, there is in our
community a sense of superiority. During my training in SI I was
exposed to this sense of superiority, and frankly, it hurts at times
to be looked down at in a bodywork profession, simply because I was a
Massage Therapist. Perhaps this superiority may hide a deep ignorance
of medical facts about the Myofascial Pain and Dysfunction syndrome:
this isn't hard, even the medical field barely knows about it,
although it is extremely well documented. The books in question are
quite a chunk and it takes many readings to just begin to understand
NeuroMuscular anatomy and physiology, and only begin to see the
potential of deep bodywork in the larger perspective of Neuro-
Musclular problems in general, and in relationship to specific
problems which have to be studies separately. Perhaps this
superiority hides ignorance of technical facts about Neuro-Muscular
Therapy.

My take on this: I strongly encourage you to consider a dual
background NMT-SI as a very potent blend in Bodywork. You do not have
to betray either one, no matter how strongly some may want you to
believe, and although it is discouraged with good reasons to not try
to integrate SI in a symptomatic approach. Each will build on the
other, and as I am confident you already know, the whole is greater
than the sum of the parts.

As far as writing a book myself, I frankly couldn't, I only have 2
some years of SI professional practice experience (I am wrapping up a
computer training and shifting towards a computer based carrier
plan). Also, the most legitimate authors of such book would have to
be the people that directly learn from Ida P. ROLF. However the guru
spirit is so deeply anchored, and people are busy too, that it may
never happen. That people do not understand that it is better to
write the book now than 20 years from now is beyond my comprehension.
That people do not understand that by helping the community grow
(giving an educational tool to new trainings etc.) is good for every
one, that too is beyond what I can grasp.

Thank you for hitting the `Play button'. Hope you liked the music.
:)

Sincerely,

Reda





--- In Structure_Integrator@y..., tartarean@a... wrote:
> 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@y...
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#SECTION000100
0
> >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