Thursday, February 08, 2007


Tablework, I believe, is predicated on the idea that the person must be 'restored', 're-educated' i.e. their sensory appreciation must be brought up to scratch (means become reliable). Now, while I don't doubt that when this can be affected, there will be a tremendous increase in health & vitality, hence mental condition, I do doubt that this step is essential, that it is the ONLY WAY a person can return to a good condition.

The connection between mental health (which for me means a person who is reliably in touch with the realities of this world) and our 'use of self' is undeniable close. But is it a strictly one-way causal relationship in the sense that - improve your use, improve your mind? Alexander's own pedagogy, it seems, is based solely on this assumption. And there is a tremendous amount of evidence that verifies this assumption.

Unfortunately, there is also abundant evidence to counter it. There are many examples of people, who we would classify as having appalling use, who are in great mental health, who definitely show qualities we would normally associate with persons already a long way along the path of 'conscious, constructive control' of their 'self'. The exception seems to point to the fact that a DIFFERENT MECHANISM is at play when it comes to the question of becoming more in touch with reality.

How did they do that without ever having had an Alexander lesson? Or a table turn? And with such terrible use!