Publication Type:Journal Article
The Feldenkrais Method is first and foremost an experimental practice guided by certain fundamental assumptions both explicit and implicit. These assumptions have been influenced by a variety of experiences/concepts/theories..... In “The Case of Nora – Body Awareness as Healing Therapy” Moshe Feldenkrais wrote that the working hypothesis for this case study “is somewhere between intuition and future scientific gospel.” As yet we are still far from approaching this future science, but the conditions for its emergence have improved. Such science can only be developed through dialogue. I am interested here in the number of possibilities and preconditions for such a dialogue with different sciences and what Feldenkrais teachers and scientists can learn from one another. Our practice is to some extent already interdisciplinary and many-voiced because we are always dealing with living human beings who cannot be fitted into the limitations and fragmentations of separate disciplines. Thus we need many dialog partners. We should not only favour the natural sciences. If we wish to get in a dialogue with others, we have to be able to express what is important to us in our work, what experiences we have and what insights we gain. This requires that we develop and practise using a language of our own. In December 2002 leading scientists and Feldenkrais teachers met in Paris for a dialogue.(1) In an atmosphere that was both pleasantly relaxed and stimulating, a group of Feldenkrais teachers from all over the world listened to lectures with great interest. These four days were a beginning but not as yet a proper dialogue. The lectures and conversations with colleagues prompted me to write down a few thoughts about the relationship between Feldenkrais and science. This is a personal response, founded on my individual and professional background as much as on what I experienced in Paris – and what I felt to be missing there. Others would respond differently; and thus a dialogue might ensue which could take us further. My thoughts are associative and fragmentary rather than systematic. They are intended to encourage discussion rather than trying to prove or justify something.
<p>Schacker, Werner (2004). Finding our own language. <em>IFF Academy Research Journal</em>, 1. </p><p>www.iffresearchjournal.org </p>