mike wrote:
>if you meant to imply that
>'normal' breathing is not a method, i have to disagree with you. it is a
>method...
I think it is important to make a distinction between an method of
LEARNING and a method of DOING. Normal breathing is obviously a
method of breathing. So is any other way of breathing that has been
suggested. It might be better to call them WAYS of breathing or MODES
of breathing. On the other hand, any of these ways or modes of
breathing can be used in a METHOD of learning to improve one's
breathing. I would object to anyone making a METHOD of breathing into
a comuplsive WAY to breath. As a teacher of the Feldenkrais METHOD I
tell my students that the lessons I teach are opportunities to
explore various ways of doing things and that the actions, breathing
and otherwise, that I direct them to do ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
REHEARSALS OF CORRECT ACTION. A lesson begins by observing how we
spontaneously do something (e.g., breathing), I direct my students in
specific variations of that activity, and then they again observe how
they spontaneously do the original action, looking for differences.
What I just described is the general process used in the FELDENKRAIS
Method. I know that are plenty of other ways of teaching that consist
of rehearsal of what the teacher considers to be correct. I suspect,
mike, that your objection to breathing methods is that they may be
taught in a way that encourages students to make a habit of
interfering with their breathing outside the context of a lesson.
Certinly I would object to such an approach.
John Link
P.S. Sorry about all the capitalized words. I don't mean to shout,
simply to emphasize certain words in order to make distinctions. I
would have used italics except that I believe that they wouldn't get
transmitted to the list. Let's check that out. The last word of my
post willl be in italics: italics
Check out my CDs:
http://www.cdBaby.com/JohnLink2 (John Link Sextet)
http://www.cdBaby.com/JohnLink (John Link Vocal Quintet)
|
|  |
