Very generalized, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard it generalized to book learning, which seems to be the focus of the OP. Did Feldenkrais apply it there? I don’t recall anything like that.
The Potent Self generalizes all the way to volition, which I thought was very interesting, but again, application to book learning eludes me.
Our self-image consists of four components that are involved in every
action: movement, sensation, feeling, and thought. The contribution of
each of the components to any particular action varies, just as the persons carrying out the action vary, but each component will be present
to some extent in any action.
In order to think, for instance, a person must be awake, and know that
he is awake and not dreaming; that is, he must sense and discern his
physical position relative to the field of gravity. It follows that movement, sensing, and feeling are also involved in thinking
[...]
The problem of human correction—either through others or by
one’s own efforts—has preoccupied man throughout his history.
Correction of movements is the best means of self-improvement
Movement occupies the nervous system more than anything
else because we cannot sense, feel, or think without a many-sided
and elaborate series of actions initiated by the brain to maintain
the body against the pull of gravity; at the same time we must
know where we are and in what position.
Then 8 different arguments follow why correcting movement is the best focal point. According to Feldenkrais improving movement while one engages in book learning is the low hanging fruit.
The usual argument against parasitic tension probably applies to thinking. If your body is holding unnecessary stress, and doing unnecessary things (particularly in the brain, as opposed to spinal reflexes), then there is good reason to believe that this would hamper learning, in terms of sapping energy and attention. There probably are more and less effectively body activations for learning.
But I wonder about the fundamental claim here, though, about what we “must know” in order to think. Does he cite evidence for these claims?
I expect that your nervous system is always adapting to the local gravitational field, and the effects it has on your body, but in what sense “must” you know where you are, and in what position? What happens if you don’t?
If I understand Feldenkrais right, then it’s not limited to the physical context. He thinks that what he teaches affects all parts of cognition.
Very generalized, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard it generalized to book learning, which seems to be the focus of the OP. Did Feldenkrais apply it there? I don’t recall anything like that.
The Potent Self generalizes all the way to volition, which I thought was very interesting, but again, application to book learning eludes me.
From his book Awareness Through Movement:
Then 8 different arguments follow why correcting movement is the best focal point. According to Feldenkrais improving movement while one engages in book learning is the low hanging fruit.
Yes, thank you. It gives me one idea, at least.
The usual argument against parasitic tension probably applies to thinking. If your body is holding unnecessary stress, and doing unnecessary things (particularly in the brain, as opposed to spinal reflexes), then there is good reason to believe that this would hamper learning, in terms of sapping energy and attention. There probably are more and less effectively body activations for learning.
But I wonder about the fundamental claim here, though, about what we “must know” in order to think. Does he cite evidence for these claims?
I expect that your nervous system is always adapting to the local gravitational field, and the effects it has on your body, but in what sense “must” you know where you are, and in what position? What happens if you don’t?