Thank you! If you search for the Initial Alexander Technique on youtube, you will find a channel with that name that features long form interviews with Jeando Masoero.
Thanks for this fantastic video. I've been an Alexander teacher for 20 years and just recently started understanding this due tension muscle activation with the help of my Iyengar yoga teacher.
Great info, a lot of people need to hear this type of stuff to correct things at a fundamental level. The only thing I would add to what you're saying is that we should be using the 4th and 5th metatarsals while standing, as well as the first three (ball of foot), for weight bearing/standing. One way to think of where the weight should be distributed is to imagine the shape of a hockey stick going from the 4th and 5th metatarsals and cornering around the ball of the foot. We really shouldn't rest too much weight on the heels.. if I was to give a percentage id say 70/30 hockey stick to heel ratio. When we sprint, we see a reciprocal external to internal rotation of the lower leg (upper as well). Because of this rotation, we will land initially in an externally rotated position (on the hockey stick shaped part of the forefoot) and as we stride with the foot on the ground, going into hip extension, we will begin to internally rotate the lower and upper leg which will also have us corner around the forefoot, propelling ourselves off the first three toes or metatarsals. There is also. a lot of other rotation occurring at other parts of the upper body but in all, locomotion is an action that uses lots of rotation in the transverse plane to facilitate forward or backward movement and the whole body is interconnected from the big toe all the way to the top of your head.
Something to consider about Alexanders form; most people wear shoes with 2 major features which greatly affect their gait, these are the added padding to the heel, preventing proper walking on the forefoot, and shoes with narrow toeboxes, which squish all the toes together and causes havoc upon peoples arches in their feet. I once watched an old video about the outfits of medieval peasants, and one section of the video was about shoes, the shoes they wore were just simple leather bound to the feet, and an interesting thing which was taught was the method of walking in these shoes, which was done by stepping into the forefoot first, then the heel. and similarly to what you showed in this video it would be the first three toes which landd, since the man in the video taught that they walked by landing on their forefoot, more specifically the ball of their foot, which would put the pressure on the first 3 toes. So a major reason which may have affected Alexander to choose a wrong method of standing and/or walking is that his feet, along with all the feet of everyone he ever knew, were warped beyond their natural state, which he simply didn't know any better. Perhaps the first cure to bad posture is to fix the foundation, which is the feet, which can be done by wearing barefoot shoes and wearing toe spreaders to widen the toes apart properly. More and more people are recognising the degeneration of the human form due to the disrespect people show to their ancestors, labeling them as "barbaric" or "primitive", thereby losing all the good wisdom they taught.
Isaac, this is great information, thank you for the whole series. As someone who works with performers I have to take issue with your seeming assertion that the "pigeon-toed" posture is the only one capable of supporting lively uprightness. Alexander's work began with and continues to resonate with performers, who must assume all manner of configurations of the limbs with the demands of the material. I often use this alignment of the feet to help singers feel the opening of the thoracolumbar, but I think that that engagement can be maintained while placing the feet in the active posture. It may be conditioning or some deep instinct, but I am not interested in a singer facing directly at me with both feet perpendicular, it's just a complete departure from aesthetics and basic non-verbal communication. People prefer not to be confronted directly, even with a song, so the pose Alexander recommends seems somehow to welcome the audience obliquely. Further, and I haven't been able to have a lesson in over a year, so I am just a neophyte, relatively speaking-the promise that Alexander made was that the primary control would enable people to perform to the best of their ability in any endeavor. Again, performers and dancers especially have to bend their spines all the time; there must be a manner of use that can support any configuration that the performer might be called upon to create, otherwise, what's the point of studying Alexander Technique, initial or otherwise, right? Again, not being confrontational, I appreciate your work and am curious to hear your thoughts. Warmly, MT
I appreciate the comment, Michael. This is obviously a complex question, especially when you bring in the aesthetics of artistic expression as a parameter. I don’t mean to suggest that one should never place their feet in any other way, or that this is the only way to have support from your feet. Without question we should be capable of having one leg forward and one leg back without unduly shortening the torso or legs, and other movements of the legs are the same. The argument is that this configuration of the lower leg is the best way to use the lower leg because it produces a more rigid foot - which is needed to best use the foot as a lever arm. This will be examined in closer detail a few episodes from now. Delsarte would agree with you that art is to be presented obliquely, but I wouldn’t necessarily say I agree. It’s certainly the way that art has been presented for a long time, but maybe obliquely oriented people want their art (and other things beyond art) to be presented obliquely. But I must say I’m a little puzzled. Why would you say you need to point the feet outward in order to present obliquely? It seems your idea is that the torso can still be organized when the feet are asymmetric, which is true. But what does pointing the feet outward really do in this scenario? I can’t imagine the audience is being heavily impacted by the angle of the feet. The relative positioning of the feet and legs (that is, the gestures performed with them) will surely have influence the audience, but I struggle to see how the orientation of the feet themselves could have such an impact artistically speaking. I would invite you to experiment with this, particularly with arts like singing and acting. I think it’s worth considering if you could have a performer do what is deemed necessary for the performance while screwing the ankles and abducting the backs of the legs. It may be that the normal performer feels that they must point their feet outward because that’s what they are habitually used to doing all the time. There are many instances, with much more mundane acts than a full artistic performance, where people feel that they cannot make certain movements, when really they can - they would just feel at first strange and uncomfortable. Of course we can bend our spines and turn our heads, Jeando even has an has an excellent procedure for bending your head back so that you look straight up but without shortening the neck or torso. That is the key, can we bend our spine without unduly shortening? Can we turn our head without habitually shortening the neck and torso? For most the answer is no, but the solution is not to stand straight as opposed to obliquely, since most people can’t even stand straight without shortening. If you’re arguing that you need the feet to point outwards in order to make the whole torso oblique and twisted, I can’t say that I agree with that as a practice. It may very well be visually interesting by modern standards, models are certainly asked to contort themselves into terrible postures because it's believed that the angles make a more dynamic image. But models, like dancers are plagued by pain. The real question for these performers is: can they return to a reasonable baseline when the performance is over and they have to live their life? Which I think you may agree with: if you are going to make extreme contortions for your art, you should have a plan to get back to a baseline in your day to day life. You wrote: “there must be a manner of use that can support any configuration that the performer might be called upon to create, otherwise, what's the point of studying Alexander Technique, initial or otherwise, right? ” In my view, AT is a reasoned system. You can assess a demand that is placed on you and figure out a way to do it so as to not unduly shorten yourself. Even if you need to shorten part of you for a certain duration, that can be done without falling into global habitual shortening. That is the means whereby principle. You figure out the means by which you can perform a gesture, and you implement those means in order to gain your end. If you willfully go against what is reasonable, if you purposely decide not to follow the means that you know are best, I don’t see how a reasoned system like AT or iAT could help you in that moment. If you decide that the artistic expression is more important at that time, that is your choice to make, but I don’t see how that’s a failure of the system: that it doesn’t work when you don’t use it. And just my personal opinion, I would question the purpose of art that requires shortening and narrowing to be performed, I think its effect upon the audience may not be a positive one. I do like your comment about people not liking to be confronted directly. I think a fully lengthened and widened posture is inherently confrontational because you are not mirroring the people around you, you are presenting something that is completely foreign. In the modern world, having good posture is, by definition, unusual behavior. Whether that’s a fault in good posture or society at large is for one to decide for themselves. And I really do appreciate the comment, feel free to question or confront any time. I don’t take any offense to disagreement, especially from people like yourself who are reasonable and have something to say.
Do aboriginal cultures stand with their feet angled in in the way you describe? Did FM observe that angle of the feet in the Māori, by whom he was influenced? Do Masai tribesmen who run marathons barefoot carrying heavy shields without pain angle their feet in the way you and Jeando suggest? If so, it is new information to me, although I am admittedly no expert on this. If not, I wonder why not? Where is an aboriginal culture that demonstrates this inwardly turned angle of the feet? I’m trying to reconcile the logic, thought, and experimentation behind Jeando’s idea with what seems to me to be a lack of evidence to support it in the history of human functioning. Any thoughts on this? Thanks so much for sharing your IA videos - always clear and interesting.
@@ravenoftheweek1137 Jeando’s entire approach is based on reasoning transcending instinct, so i don’t know why you think he would appeal to aboriginal cultures. Isaac made deliberate reference to very interesting theories about the greeks, who would have been more inclined to reasoned transcendence of inherited behavioral patterns.
@@ravenoftheweek1137 A couple of episodes from now I will return to this subject, and I will explain the scientific backing for what Masoero recommends. Although, really, it’s only a little more complicated than what I put forward here: this position lengthens the fascia and muscles. While I understand why you would be interested in what non-civilized or less-civilized people do, I don’t think there is a clear logical basis for expecting them to have correct use. Alexander certainly did not say that non-civilized people had correct use. Because their instincts were honed by their natural living (e.g. they had to literally hunt down food as opposed to buying food with money they earned working on a machine), their subconscious guidance was much more reliable than that of modern people. But he still considered them to be subconsciously guided, just as he considered nearly everyone in modern civilization to be subconsciously guided in their movements. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with Alexander’s ideas on this subject, but he believed that gaining conscious guidance was essentially the next evolutionary step for mankind to take. Our conscious mind had made us very different from the animals and even our past ancestors, which, though it came with many benefits, also made our instincts unreliable (e.g. with our conscious mind we made machines to labor for us, and so our instincts, which were long attuned to nature, became inapplicable and almost useless). As I said, I’m not saying this as my opinion, but it does put the question into focus. Do you believe you will have good use if you go backwards and live in a non-civilized way? Is your intention to hone your subconscious instincts by living close to nature? If not, what will imitating non-civilized people do for you? Alexander believed going backwards like this was impossible, that the only solution was consciously controlling and guiding your movements based on a logically built system. The final question on this subject that kind of turns the whole thing on its head, is the simple question of what is a non-civilized society? At what point do your tools, buildings, and societal structures qualify you as civilized? Are these groups that we consider “primitive” actually all that primitive? Or are they taking the first steps into misuse that every civilized group must have taken at some point? They may not be nearly as far gone as we are in the modern world, but they may have already fallen quite a distance from their truly wild ancestors. They may only seem non-civilized by comparison to highly-civilized societies.
@@michaeltilley8708 Thanks for your reply. To be clear, although I’ve listened to interviews with Jeando and read a number of his articles, I’ve never had a lesson with him, much less train with him, and so I in no way consider myself to have a deep understanding of his work. So, my questions are those of someone who doesn’t know what the Jeando/IA take on a particular issue would be, not the questions of someone who claims to understand it yet thinks it’s somehow in error. I hope that’s clear! So, when you said you don’t know why I would think he would appeal to aboriginal cultures, I was surprised. I don’t pretend to know what Jeando would appeal to, other than the books of FM Alexander. My frame of reference for my questions is that of someone respectful of Jeando’s work (and Isaac’s) and curious about it. My intention is to know more and understand more clearly, not to seek to refute any part of it. Perhaps my tone seemed to suggest more antagonism than I intended - very possible, as excited curiosity can come across that way in a written message.
This is the exact question, I had in my mind for quite sometime.. "What angle should feet be kept: at 90 degrees or at angled", but had not found an answer to it until I got to this video. Thanks for the great information!
Is this video arguing that the feet should turn inward? Pigeon toed, in other words? The video is unclear on this point but keeps pointing to a diagram that shows the feet pointing inwards, so I can only conclude that this is what it is recommending. But that doesn't seem right to me. It seems like a very unnatural and restrictive position. The video cites to the Diana Watts book to make the argument, but she just says the Greeks put the weight on the inner three toes. She does not appear to be saying the feet should turn inwards. Can anyone clarify any of this?
I do think the outsides of the feet should point forward, which means the insides of the feet will point in. This is not exactly pigeon toed, as you’ll find most pigeon-toed people are still on the outsides of the feet and display many of the other general postural issues that are contrary to the model I support. Most will not have the outsides of their feet straight ahead, either. If you’re used to narrowing the heels and widening the feet, it will feel strange and perhaps even a bit tense to straighten the feet like this. Simply placing the feet correctly is not the whole picture, obviously, so if the appropriate movements of the the rest of the leg, torso, and whole body are not coordinated with the adjustment of the feet, it will be of little value. I would agree that Watts’s position does not fully align with what I’m saying, her position is a bit in between the position I support and the more generally held position. The specific model of the feet that I support comes from Jeando Masoero. Changing your posture will require that you use your body in a way that is different, and so we would expect it to be at first uneasy and to feel strange. I would argue that’s part of why the feeling sense should not be the guide. The issues with widening the front of the feet is that is corresponds with a narrowing of the backs of the legs. If that narrowing is habitually done, it will feel comfortable and natural.
@@delsartealexandermasoeroyo9147 ok I see. The picture is a little unclear, as it appears to show the feet pointing inwards, but now I see that's just due to the angle that the bones of the toes point at when the outside of the foot is straight. I will experiment with that. My feet are flat and over pronated so I have other issues going on that I'm working on as well.
@@delsartealexandermasoeroyo9147 it would seem like the foot should point straight forward just as a matter of physics and maximizing propulsion when you walk, run, or jump. I don't if that means the outside of the foot should be straight for everyone but the ankle joint should generally be aligned with the direction of travel it would seem. I'm no expert. Just seeks intuitive to me.
I look at that a bit in the twelfth video in this series. You’d think people with bowed legs vs those with knock knees would have opposite things happening in their lower leg, but there are actually remarkable similarities. The similarities are exactly in line with what’s examined in this video and the rest of the series on the legs.
99% of students and teachers will loose any tension in the lower back when toes pointed out , by engaging the lower back with in turned toes going straight forward we can learn to maintain this tension through legs and torso then it is possible to turn the feet out without loosing engagement but what most people are doing is having a neutral spine mistakingly believing that this is what we are looking for which is wrong.
@@ravenoftheweek1137 No, the idea is not that we are angling our feet inwards. The position I’ve described points the feet straight ahead. Because of how the foot is shaped, when the feet are straight ahead, the toes are much closer than what people are used to, and the heels are further apart than what most people are used to. However, the position I’ve described makes the ligaments of the foot and the fascia of the lower leg taut, which is how they need to be to efficiently be used as lever arm and to bear weight. By comparison to what people are used to, it will feel like turning your feet in. But you are in reality just pointing your feet straight.
Feel free to elaborate. I obviously greatly admire Alexander. But I do think he's wrong in his advice to angle the feet about 45 degrees to each other. It's interesting that if you compare Alexander's bad vs good picture, you'll see that his feet are more widely angled at the front in the bad picture. So it seems he believed his advice was to narrow the distance between the toes compared to what was the average. We take that just a little bit further in order to provide a base where the ankles, knees, and hips are all the same distance apart, with the ankles facing 90 degrees to forward.
It takes a few years to understand what Alexander meant with his feet position. It should never be 45 degrees. That would be like a clown! It is a much softer angle, perhaps 30 degrees. However, it will be subtly different for each person. The main thing to realise is that the feet cannot walk effectively if we have parallel feet or if the toes point towards each other that is hopeless. The problem is that if we try to be too academic about it, we end up trying to develop a one-size-fits-all criteria. We are all different and the Alexander Teacher will observe what is best given the interrelationship between the individual parts. ruclips.net/video/OnQawIB8eMU/видео.html
"The main thing to realise is that the feet cannot walk effectively if we have parallel feet or if the toes point towards each other that is hopeless." If this is the main thing to realize, then I should hope there is some argument to support what you're saying, or evidence of some kind. If you walk with your toes pointed 30 degrees out, you will end up on the outside of your feet. As a result you will not have weight pressing down on the inside of the foot, which is needed to stretch the plantar aponeurosis. I go into detail about this in video 08 of this series, but the foot needs to be transformed into a sturdy lever that can efficiently used for propulsion when we walk. When you have the feet pointed out, the feet will be closer to the loose pack position, which means your feet will not be sturdy, but will instead be flexible and inefficient for propelling the body. You can absolutely walk effectively with the outsides of the feet parallel. Having the "axle" of the ankle point 90 degrees to forward is also optimal when it comes to efficiency, but that would be near impossible to sustain if you pointed your feet outward. If you point your feet out, you're likely to point the ankles out as well because you'll be narrowing the backs of the legs.
Alexander's feet positioning is functional to teaching, it is the most effective for lowering into a monkey to put the hands on a pupil. As he would himself state, there's no thing such a 'correct position' nor 'posture'. We are designed to move, and Alexander work is allowing us to seek for freedom in movement. Instruction for teaching or for sitting and standing should not be interpreted as ''the way' to do everything. Knees forward and away is functional for sitting. Try to sit with narrow knees. You will have tons of tension in the hips. Alexander is not providing a fixed idea to move around and about, nor should we look for it.
I understand your perspective, but I think you might want to examine some of the fixed ideas you appear to have on the subject. You say sitting with narrow knees will produce tension in the hips. I assume that when you say narrow knees, you would include knees that point straight ahead, and that you subscribe to the common AT practice nowadays of widening the knees to sit. However, why is “tension” bad in your view? Isn’t due tension absolutely necessary? If your feeling sense was used to not feeling such tension, wouldn’t due tension feel “tense”? Should the feeling even be guiding us? Shouldn't we be reasoning and not feeling our way through the matter? If we seek freedom in movement, then shouldn’t we be able to sit with the outsides of the feet pointing straight head and the knees pointing straight ahead? Might the tense feeling one experiences when they try this be an indication of a lack of freedom? Because I do sit with my knees pointing straight ahead, and I can also widen them if the situation demands that I do so. I would argue that feeling as if you must point the feet out to go into monkey is an indication of a habitual narrowing at the backs of the legs and a lack of abduction in the legs. I also must say I’m not particularly impressed with how most AT teachers go into monkey nowadays, as you will often see them retracting their upper torso and head rather significantly. If you compare how most teacher today go into monkey with how Alexander and his early students went into monkey, the difference is quite glaring.
I mean exactly what you say when you state that you can widen the knees when required. That is what Alexander is pointing out. Most of the bad monkeys you see around are due to people opening the feet, but not letting the knees go away from each other while lowering in space. They put themselves in a position, but they do not let go of the tension in the hips and knees. The legs move according to a double spiral arrangement of the muscles, when going down one spiral works by opening out, widening the knees happens momentarily (think of going in a squat) while coming back up the opposite spiral works (inner thighs, etc)and you get the legs to straighten and the knees going back in (hence the feet). All joints should stay movable all the time, transitioning to one movement to the next. My “preconceived ideas” come from 4 years of training as AT teacher + 15 years of practice, teaching about 300 hrs p/y.
@@kathleendelaney5846 I still don’t understand why you’re asserting that tension in the hips or knees is inherently an issue. Fascia and connective tissue needs to be taut to function. Even muscles function better when they have an underlying tension from being lengthened as opposed to shortened. I would say most people are greatly lacking in due tension, even though they may have a few muscles that are overworking and tense. If you lack that tension, you will not be capable of lowering your torso without retracting your head and, in most cases, bending the lower back. Those are, to me, indications that the monkey gesture is failing, as you are essentially shortening and narrowing the back when you do that. I almost always go into monkey with my feet pointed straight ahead at the outsides and with my ankles, knees, and hips all in line with each other. This allows me to have the freedom in the joints that you mention, to stop the monkey at any point while lowering, and even to lift off the chair immediately without needing to heave myself forward. Whereas, if you closely observe how many AT teachers sit, they are either falling down to the chair, or they are dramatically lowering their ribcage (leaning sometimes 60+ degrees) in order to sit softly. Most cannot stand up without using momentum to hurl themselves forward (which results in the lower ribs and abdomen going forward and the head retracting). I don’t really understand what your conception of the double spiral of the legs means. Why would you want part of your leg to be inactive as you go down and the opposite spiral of muscles to be inactive as you stand up? How do you even know that that’s what’s happening with the muscles? Is it based on the feeling? I’ve studied in the current version of the Alexander Technique as well, and as I said, I find the way that monkey is typically performed and taught frequently results in the very faults that Alexander detailed in his books over and over: retraction of the head, hollowing of the back, protrusion of the abdomen. Jeando Masero (who trained in AT and was a training program teacher) has catalogued numerous images taken from AT teachers themselves and compared them with images of Alexander and his early students. The differences specifically in the retraction of the head, the hollowing of the lower back, and the protrusion of the abdomen while in monkey and also in standing are glaring. So while I respect that you are well-versed in the Alexander Technique, I’m quite skeptical of how AT is being taught nowadays. An idea like tension being bad is, in my opinion, quite contrary to what Alexander believed, and yet that idea is very popular in the AT world. So while I’m unclear on why you’ve placed “preconceived ideas” in quotes in your comment (I never said that), I do think that many of the ideas that are popular in the AT world today are completely backwards, and unfortunately there’s been a huge shift towards a focus on the feeling sense, even though Alexander warned that we must use our reasoning capabilities and not rely on our faulty sensory perception.
@@delsartealexandermasoeroyo9147 I understand your point and I’m sorry if I cannot explain properly. I agree about the fact that people are most of the time not making use of their leg muscles. But we always need to work out of primary control, taking care of the head, neck and back. Thinking about placing the legs somewhere means end-gaining. This way we go into feelings: what feels “right”. The trap is there waiting for us. We find something and we feel good about it. We think we found truth. We don’t unfortunately. With the word tension we refer to fixation, rigidity and lack of elasticity. We do tense muscles for example to lift weights, using flexors and substantially bending one isolated joint. When we move our own body, it’s a whole different story. Postural Reflexes take over and we actually need very little tension. The double spiral arrangement of the muscles in the legs (and in the whole body) is activated as general pattern. We move as a coordinated whole, and by following this principle than muscles and joints fall in place. We really need not to interfere with the reflexes, that’s all. And it’s a process, it takes time, it’s not about following the instructions. Concerning the double spiral arrangement, you can look into Dart’s procedures.
@@kathleendelaney5846 My point has specifically been that many AT teachers who perform monkey can be seen to be bending their back (hollowing the back), protruding the abdomen, and retracting the head. So when you say that the primary control must be primary, I agree to an extent. The position of the feet is less important than the condition of the torso. Does it not concern you that teachers are massively shortening and narrowing their backs in order to go into monkey? Isn't that an indication of something faulty in their conception of the act? You say that thinking about placing the legs is end-gaining. I would disagree, but how can you then say that the feet should point out and the knees should considerably widen? Doesn’t that pose the same problem? Isn't that end-gaining in your view? You’ve already stated that keeping the knees straight ahead produces an uncomfortable feeling of tension for you. I would agree that most people would find the movement uncomfortable because they are not used to experiencing due tension. I’m not at all guiding the movement based on feeling, but it seems you, to some degree, are. I really reject the notion that “thinking” about how you place any part of the body is wrong. Thinking is not the problem. Here’s a quote from Alexander himself: “The primary principle involved in attaining a correct standing position is the placing of the feet in that position which will ensure their greatest effect as base, pivot, and fulcrum, and thereby throw the limbs and trunk into that pose in which they may be correctly influenced and aided by the force of gravity.” I don’t actually fully agree with that, but I do think it quite obviously shows that thinking about how you place your feet is not something that is an issue. I must say, I think you’re confused on the idea of tension. I know it’s commonly considered a bad word (rigidity as well) in the AT world, but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Elasticity requires tension. If an elastic tissue has no tension, it’s limp and malfunctioning. Without rigidity, there can only be collapse. A lack of tension is a serious problem. Part of the confusion is that you seem to be talking about specific muscles, while I’m talking about the fascial system. Fascia must be taut to function. Yes, it’s certainly possible for specific muscles to be overworked and to be too tense, but that will mean that other muscles are underworking and lack tension. Simply removing tension will not fix the problem, it will make it worse. The only way for overworked muscles to be able to stop overworking is to bring due tension to not just the musculature as a whole, but to all the fascia and connective tissues of the body. The idea that posture is entirely reflexive is completely counter to everything that Alexander said and taught. It’s also contradicted by modern science. You say we should not interfere with the reflexes. You can have that view, but then wouldn’t you think Alexander is completely wrong? His entire point was that we can use our conscious mind to rationally guide and control how we use our bodies. It sounds like you don't believe that. It sounds like you think this is not a rational process. I'm familiar with Dart and the double spirals, but I'm asking if you can explain how that translates to something you can specifically do with your legs as you go into monkey. I don't see how it makes sense to say you should activate one spiral to go up and one to go down, and I don't see how you could verify that you are doing so.
what other channels are like yours you are gold
Thank you! If you search for the Initial Alexander Technique on youtube, you will find a channel with that name that features long form interviews with Jeando Masoero.
Thanks for this fantastic video. I've been an Alexander teacher for 20 years and just recently started understanding this due tension muscle activation with the help of my Iyengar yoga teacher.
Interesting, due tension is indeed very fundamental to using the body properly. Thanks for watching!
Great info, a lot of people need to hear this type of stuff to correct things at a fundamental level. The only thing I would add to what you're saying is that we should be using the 4th and 5th metatarsals while standing, as well as the first three (ball of foot), for weight bearing/standing. One way to think of where the weight should be distributed is to imagine the shape of a hockey stick going from the 4th and 5th metatarsals and cornering around the ball of the foot. We really shouldn't rest too much weight on the heels.. if I was to give a percentage id say 70/30 hockey stick to heel ratio. When we sprint, we see a reciprocal external to internal rotation of the lower leg (upper as well). Because of this rotation, we will land initially in an externally rotated position (on the hockey stick shaped part of the forefoot) and as we stride with the foot on the ground, going into hip extension, we will begin to internally rotate the lower and upper leg which will also have us corner around the forefoot, propelling ourselves off the first three toes or metatarsals. There is also. a lot of other rotation occurring at other parts of the upper body but in all, locomotion is an action that uses lots of rotation in the transverse plane to facilitate forward or backward movement and the whole body is interconnected from the big toe all the way to the top of your head.
Something to consider about Alexanders form; most people wear shoes with 2 major features which greatly affect their gait, these are the added padding to the heel, preventing proper walking on the forefoot, and shoes with narrow toeboxes, which squish all the toes together and causes havoc upon peoples arches in their feet.
I once watched an old video about the outfits of medieval peasants, and one section of the video was about shoes, the shoes they wore were just simple leather bound to the feet, and an interesting thing which was taught was the method of walking in these shoes, which was done by stepping into the forefoot first, then the heel. and similarly to what you showed in this video it would be the first three toes which landd, since the man in the video taught that they walked by landing on their forefoot, more specifically the ball of their foot, which would put the pressure on the first 3 toes.
So a major reason which may have affected Alexander to choose a wrong method of standing and/or walking is that his feet, along with all the feet of everyone he ever knew, were warped beyond their natural state, which he simply didn't know any better.
Perhaps the first cure to bad posture is to fix the foundation, which is the feet, which can be done by wearing barefoot shoes and wearing toe spreaders to widen the toes apart properly.
More and more people are recognising the degeneration of the human form due to the disrespect people show to their ancestors, labeling them as "barbaric" or "primitive", thereby losing all the good wisdom they taught.
Isaac, this is great information, thank you for the whole series. As someone who works with performers I have to take issue with your seeming assertion that the "pigeon-toed" posture is the only one capable of supporting lively uprightness. Alexander's work began with and continues to resonate with performers, who must assume all manner of configurations of the limbs with the demands of the material. I often use this alignment of the feet to help singers feel the opening of the thoracolumbar, but I think that that engagement can be maintained while placing the feet in the active posture. It may be conditioning or some deep instinct, but I am not interested in a singer facing directly at me with both feet perpendicular, it's just a complete departure from aesthetics and basic non-verbal communication. People prefer not to be confronted directly, even with a song, so the pose Alexander recommends seems somehow to welcome the audience obliquely.
Further, and I haven't been able to have a lesson in over a year, so I am just a neophyte, relatively speaking-the promise that Alexander made was that the primary control would enable people to perform to the best of their ability in any endeavor. Again, performers and dancers especially have to bend their spines all the time; there must be a manner of use that can support any configuration that the performer might be called upon to create, otherwise, what's the point of studying Alexander Technique, initial or otherwise, right?
Again, not being confrontational, I appreciate your work and am curious to hear your thoughts. Warmly, MT
I appreciate the comment, Michael. This is obviously a complex question, especially when you bring in the aesthetics of artistic expression as a parameter. I don’t mean to suggest that one should never place their feet in any other way, or that this is the only way to have support from your feet. Without question we should be capable of having one leg forward and one leg back without unduly shortening the torso or legs, and other movements of the legs are the same. The argument is that this configuration of the lower leg is the best way to use the lower leg because it produces a more rigid foot - which is needed to best use the foot as a lever arm. This will be examined in closer detail a few episodes from now.
Delsarte would agree with you that art is to be presented obliquely, but I wouldn’t necessarily say I agree. It’s certainly the way that art has been presented for a long time, but maybe obliquely oriented people want their art (and other things beyond art) to be presented obliquely.
But I must say I’m a little puzzled. Why would you say you need to point the feet outward in order to present obliquely? It seems your idea is that the torso can still be organized when the feet are asymmetric, which is true. But what does pointing the feet outward really do in this scenario? I can’t imagine the audience is being heavily impacted by the angle of the feet. The relative positioning of the feet and legs (that is, the gestures performed with them) will surely have influence the audience, but I struggle to see how the orientation of the feet themselves could have such an impact artistically speaking.
I would invite you to experiment with this, particularly with arts like singing and acting. I think it’s worth considering if you could have a performer do what is deemed necessary for the performance while screwing the ankles and abducting the backs of the legs. It may be that the normal performer feels that they must point their feet outward because that’s what they are habitually used to doing all the time. There are many instances, with much more mundane acts than a full artistic performance, where people feel that they cannot make certain movements, when really they can - they would just feel at first strange and uncomfortable.
Of course we can bend our spines and turn our heads, Jeando even has an has an excellent procedure for bending your head back so that you look straight up but without shortening the neck or torso. That is the key, can we bend our spine without unduly shortening? Can we turn our head without habitually shortening the neck and torso? For most the answer is no, but the solution is not to stand straight as opposed to obliquely, since most people can’t even stand straight without shortening.
If you’re arguing that you need the feet to point outwards in order to make the whole torso oblique and twisted, I can’t say that I agree with that as a practice. It may very well be visually interesting by modern standards, models are certainly asked to contort themselves into terrible postures because it's believed that the angles make a more dynamic image. But models, like dancers are plagued by pain. The real question for these performers is: can they return to a reasonable baseline when the performance is over and they have to live their life? Which I think you may agree with: if you are going to make extreme contortions for your art, you should have a plan to get back to a baseline in your day to day life.
You wrote: “there must be a manner of use that can support any configuration that the performer might be called upon to create, otherwise, what's the point of studying Alexander Technique, initial or otherwise, right? ”
In my view, AT is a reasoned system. You can assess a demand that is placed on you and figure out a way to do it so as to not unduly shorten yourself. Even if you need to shorten part of you for a certain duration, that can be done without falling into global habitual shortening. That is the means whereby principle. You figure out the means by which you can perform a gesture, and you implement those means in order to gain your end. If you willfully go against what is reasonable, if you purposely decide not to follow the means that you know are best, I don’t see how a reasoned system like AT or iAT could help you in that moment. If you decide that the artistic expression is more important at that time, that is your choice to make, but I don’t see how that’s a failure of the system: that it doesn’t work when you don’t use it. And just my personal opinion, I would question the purpose of art that requires shortening and narrowing to be performed, I think its effect upon the audience may not be a positive one.
I do like your comment about people not liking to be confronted directly. I think a fully lengthened and widened posture is inherently confrontational because you are not mirroring the people around you, you are presenting something that is completely foreign. In the modern world, having good posture is, by definition, unusual behavior. Whether that’s a fault in good posture or society at large is for one to decide for themselves.
And I really do appreciate the comment, feel free to question or confront any time. I don’t take any offense to disagreement, especially from people like yourself who are reasonable and have something to say.
Do aboriginal cultures stand with their feet angled in in the way you describe? Did FM observe that angle of the feet in the Māori, by whom he was influenced? Do Masai tribesmen who run marathons barefoot carrying heavy shields without pain angle their feet in the way you and Jeando suggest? If so, it is new information to me, although I am admittedly no expert on this. If not, I wonder why not? Where is an aboriginal culture that demonstrates this inwardly turned angle of the feet? I’m trying to reconcile the logic, thought, and experimentation behind Jeando’s idea with what seems to me to be a lack of evidence to support it in the history of human functioning. Any thoughts on this? Thanks so much for sharing your IA videos - always clear and interesting.
@@ravenoftheweek1137 Jeando’s entire approach is based on reasoning transcending instinct, so i don’t know why you think he would appeal to aboriginal cultures. Isaac made deliberate reference to very interesting theories about the greeks, who would have been more inclined to reasoned transcendence of inherited behavioral patterns.
@@ravenoftheweek1137 A couple of episodes from now I will return to this subject, and I will explain the scientific backing for what Masoero recommends. Although, really, it’s only a little more complicated than what I put forward here: this position lengthens the fascia and muscles.
While I understand why you would be interested in what non-civilized or less-civilized people do, I don’t think there is a clear logical basis for expecting them to have correct use. Alexander certainly did not say that non-civilized people had correct use. Because their instincts were honed by their natural living (e.g. they had to literally hunt down food as opposed to buying food with money they earned working on a machine), their subconscious guidance was much more reliable than that of modern people. But he still considered them to be subconsciously guided, just as he considered nearly everyone in modern civilization to be subconsciously guided in their movements.
I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with Alexander’s ideas on this subject, but he believed that gaining conscious guidance was essentially the next evolutionary step for mankind to take. Our conscious mind had made us very different from the animals and even our past ancestors, which, though it came with many benefits, also made our instincts unreliable (e.g. with our conscious mind we made machines to labor for us, and so our instincts, which were long attuned to nature, became inapplicable and almost useless).
As I said, I’m not saying this as my opinion, but it does put the question into focus. Do you believe you will have good use if you go backwards and live in a non-civilized way? Is your intention to hone your subconscious instincts by living close to nature? If not, what will imitating non-civilized people do for you? Alexander believed going backwards like this was impossible, that the only solution was consciously controlling and guiding your movements based on a logically built system.
The final question on this subject that kind of turns the whole thing on its head, is the simple question of what is a non-civilized society? At what point do your tools, buildings, and societal structures qualify you as civilized? Are these groups that we consider “primitive” actually all that primitive? Or are they taking the first steps into misuse that every civilized group must have taken at some point? They may not be nearly as far gone as we are in the modern world, but they may have already fallen quite a distance from their truly wild ancestors. They may only seem non-civilized by comparison to highly-civilized societies.
@@michaeltilley8708 Thanks for your reply. To be clear, although I’ve listened to interviews with Jeando and read a number of his articles, I’ve never had a lesson with him, much less train with him, and so I in no way consider myself to have a deep understanding of his work. So, my questions are those of someone who doesn’t know what the Jeando/IA take on a particular issue would be, not the questions of someone who claims to understand it yet thinks it’s somehow in error. I hope that’s clear! So, when you said you don’t know why I would think he would appeal to aboriginal cultures, I was surprised. I don’t pretend to know what Jeando would appeal to, other than the books of FM Alexander. My frame of reference for my questions is that of someone respectful of Jeando’s work (and Isaac’s) and curious about it. My intention is to know more and understand more clearly, not to seek to refute any part of it. Perhaps my tone seemed to suggest more antagonism than I intended - very possible, as excited curiosity can come across that way in a written message.
This is the exact question, I had in my mind for quite sometime.. "What angle should feet be kept: at 90 degrees or at angled", but had not found an answer to it until I got to this video. Thanks for the great information!
Practicing standing like this makes me nervous. I persevere until I can’t mentally handle it. Then I sit for a while.
Is this video arguing that the feet should turn inward? Pigeon toed, in other words? The video is unclear on this point but keeps pointing to a diagram that shows the feet pointing inwards, so I can only conclude that this is what it is recommending. But that doesn't seem right to me. It seems like a very unnatural and restrictive position. The video cites to the Diana Watts book to make the argument, but she just says the Greeks put the weight on the inner three toes. She does not appear to be saying the feet should turn inwards. Can anyone clarify any of this?
I do think the outsides of the feet should point forward, which means the insides of the feet will point in. This is not exactly pigeon toed, as you’ll find most pigeon-toed people are still on the outsides of the feet and display many of the other general postural issues that are contrary to the model I support. Most will not have the outsides of their feet straight ahead, either.
If you’re used to narrowing the heels and widening the feet, it will feel strange and perhaps even a bit tense to straighten the feet like this. Simply placing the feet correctly is not the whole picture, obviously, so if the appropriate movements of the the rest of the leg, torso, and whole body are not coordinated with the adjustment of the feet, it will be of little value.
I would agree that Watts’s position does not fully align with what I’m saying, her position is a bit in between the position I support and the more generally held position. The specific model of the feet that I support comes from Jeando Masoero.
Changing your posture will require that you use your body in a way that is different, and so we would expect it to be at first uneasy and to feel strange. I would argue that’s part of why the feeling sense should not be the guide. The issues with widening the front of the feet is that is corresponds with a narrowing of the backs of the legs. If that narrowing is habitually done, it will feel comfortable and natural.
@@delsartealexandermasoeroyo9147 ok I see. The picture is a little unclear, as it appears to show the feet pointing inwards, but now I see that's just due to the angle that the bones of the toes point at when the outside of the foot is straight. I will experiment with that. My feet are flat and over pronated so I have other issues going on that I'm working on as well.
@@delsartealexandermasoeroyo9147 it would seem like the foot should point straight forward just as a matter of physics and maximizing propulsion when you walk, run, or jump. I don't if that means the outside of the foot should be straight for everyone but the ankle joint should generally be aligned with the direction of travel it would seem. I'm no expert. Just seeks intuitive to me.
@@PaxAmor1 My position is certainly that the ankle joint should face 90 degrees to forward.
How do you think this applies to, if at all differently, for bow legged people or the opposite (I forgot the term :))?
I look at that a bit in the twelfth video in this series. You’d think people with bowed legs vs those with knock knees would have opposite things happening in their lower leg, but there are actually remarkable similarities. The similarities are exactly in line with what’s examined in this video and the rest of the series on the legs.
@@delsartealexandermasoeroyo9147 really interesting, thanks! I'll check it out.
99% of students and teachers will loose any tension in the lower back when toes pointed out , by engaging the lower back with in turned toes going straight forward we can learn to maintain this tension through legs and torso then it is possible to turn the feet out without loosing engagement but what most people are doing is having a neutral spine mistakingly believing that this is what we are looking for which is wrong.
I think I see. The inward angle is corrective only, and not to be maintained once the torso has developed more tension?
@@ravenoftheweek1137 No, the idea is not that we are angling our feet inwards. The position I’ve described points the feet straight ahead. Because of how the foot is shaped, when the feet are straight ahead, the toes are much closer than what people are used to, and the heels are further apart than what most people are used to. However, the position I’ve described makes the ligaments of the foot and the fascia of the lower leg taut, which is how they need to be to efficiently be used as lever arm and to bear weight.
By comparison to what people are used to, it will feel like turning your feet in. But you are in reality just pointing your feet straight.
Wow, what a misunderstanding of Alexander!!!!!!
Feel free to elaborate. I obviously greatly admire Alexander. But I do think he's wrong in his advice to angle the feet about 45 degrees to each other.
It's interesting that if you compare Alexander's bad vs good picture, you'll see that his feet are more widely angled at the front in the bad picture. So it seems he believed his advice was to narrow the distance between the toes compared to what was the average. We take that just a little bit further in order to provide a base where the ankles, knees, and hips are all the same distance apart, with the ankles facing 90 degrees to forward.
Thank so much for the hard work, its super usefull
It takes a few years to understand what Alexander meant with his feet position. It should never be 45 degrees. That would be like a clown! It is a much softer angle, perhaps 30 degrees. However, it will be subtly different for each person. The main thing to realise is that the feet cannot walk effectively if we have parallel feet or if the toes point towards each other that is hopeless. The problem is that if we try to be too academic about it, we end up trying to develop a one-size-fits-all criteria. We are all different and the Alexander Teacher will observe what is best given the interrelationship between the individual parts. ruclips.net/video/OnQawIB8eMU/видео.html
"The main thing to realise is that the feet cannot walk effectively if we have parallel feet or if the toes point towards each other that is hopeless."
If this is the main thing to realize, then I should hope there is some argument to support what you're saying, or evidence of some kind.
If you walk with your toes pointed 30 degrees out, you will end up on the outside of your feet. As a result you will not have weight pressing down on the inside of the foot, which is needed to stretch the plantar aponeurosis. I go into detail about this in video 08 of this series, but the foot needs to be transformed into a sturdy lever that can efficiently used for propulsion when we walk. When you have the feet pointed out, the feet will be closer to the loose pack position, which means your feet will not be sturdy, but will instead be flexible and inefficient for propelling the body.
You can absolutely walk effectively with the outsides of the feet parallel. Having the "axle" of the ankle point 90 degrees to forward is also optimal when it comes to efficiency, but that would be near impossible to sustain if you pointed your feet outward. If you point your feet out, you're likely to point the ankles out as well because you'll be narrowing the backs of the legs.
Alexander's feet positioning is functional to teaching, it is the most effective for lowering into a monkey to put the hands on a pupil. As he would himself state, there's no thing such a 'correct position' nor 'posture'. We are designed to move, and Alexander work is allowing us to seek for freedom in movement. Instruction for teaching or for sitting and standing should not be interpreted as ''the way' to do everything. Knees forward and away is functional for sitting. Try to sit with narrow knees. You will have tons of tension in the hips.
Alexander is not providing a fixed idea to move around and about, nor should we look for it.
I understand your perspective, but I think you might want to examine some of the fixed ideas you appear to have on the subject. You say sitting with narrow knees will produce tension in the hips. I assume that when you say narrow knees, you would include knees that point straight ahead, and that you subscribe to the common AT practice nowadays of widening the knees to sit. However, why is “tension” bad in your view? Isn’t due tension absolutely necessary? If your feeling sense was used to not feeling such tension, wouldn’t due tension feel “tense”? Should the feeling even be guiding us? Shouldn't we be reasoning and not feeling our way through the matter?
If we seek freedom in movement, then shouldn’t we be able to sit with the outsides of the feet pointing straight head and the knees pointing straight ahead? Might the tense feeling one experiences when they try this be an indication of a lack of freedom? Because I do sit with my knees pointing straight ahead, and I can also widen them if the situation demands that I do so.
I would argue that feeling as if you must point the feet out to go into monkey is an indication of a habitual narrowing at the backs of the legs and a lack of abduction in the legs. I also must say I’m not particularly impressed with how most AT teachers go into monkey nowadays, as you will often see them retracting their upper torso and head rather significantly. If you compare how most teacher today go into monkey with how Alexander and his early students went into monkey, the difference is quite glaring.
I mean exactly what you say when you state that you can widen the knees when required. That is what Alexander is pointing out. Most of the bad monkeys you see around are due to people opening the feet, but not letting the knees go away from each other while lowering in space.
They put themselves in a position, but they do not let go of the tension in the hips and knees.
The legs move according to a double spiral arrangement of the muscles, when going down one spiral works by opening out, widening the knees happens momentarily (think of going in a squat) while coming back up the opposite spiral works (inner thighs, etc)and you get the legs to straighten and the knees going back in (hence the feet). All joints should stay movable all the time, transitioning to one movement to the next.
My “preconceived ideas” come from 4 years of training as AT teacher + 15 years of practice, teaching about 300 hrs p/y.
@@kathleendelaney5846 I still don’t understand why you’re asserting that tension in the hips or knees is inherently an issue. Fascia and connective tissue needs to be taut to function. Even muscles function better when they have an underlying tension from being lengthened as opposed to shortened. I would say most people are greatly lacking in due tension, even though they may have a few muscles that are overworking and tense.
If you lack that tension, you will not be capable of lowering your torso without retracting your head and, in most cases, bending the lower back. Those are, to me, indications that the monkey gesture is failing, as you are essentially shortening and narrowing the back when you do that.
I almost always go into monkey with my feet pointed straight ahead at the outsides and with my ankles, knees, and hips all in line with each other. This allows me to have the freedom in the joints that you mention, to stop the monkey at any point while lowering, and even to lift off the chair immediately without needing to heave myself forward. Whereas, if you closely observe how many AT teachers sit, they are either falling down to the chair, or they are dramatically lowering their ribcage (leaning sometimes 60+ degrees) in order to sit softly. Most cannot stand up without using momentum to hurl themselves forward (which results in the lower ribs and abdomen going forward and the head retracting).
I don’t really understand what your conception of the double spiral of the legs means. Why would you want part of your leg to be inactive as you go down and the opposite spiral of muscles to be inactive as you stand up? How do you even know that that’s what’s happening with the muscles? Is it based on the feeling?
I’ve studied in the current version of the Alexander Technique as well, and as I said, I find the way that monkey is typically performed and taught frequently results in the very faults that Alexander detailed in his books over and over: retraction of the head, hollowing of the back, protrusion of the abdomen. Jeando Masero (who trained in AT and was a training program teacher) has catalogued numerous images taken from AT teachers themselves and compared them with images of Alexander and his early students. The differences specifically in the retraction of the head, the hollowing of the lower back, and the protrusion of the abdomen while in monkey and also in standing are glaring.
So while I respect that you are well-versed in the Alexander Technique, I’m quite skeptical of how AT is being taught nowadays. An idea like tension being bad is, in my opinion, quite contrary to what Alexander believed, and yet that idea is very popular in the AT world. So while I’m unclear on why you’ve placed “preconceived ideas” in quotes in your comment (I never said that), I do think that many of the ideas that are popular in the AT world today are completely backwards, and unfortunately there’s been a huge shift towards a focus on the feeling sense, even though Alexander warned that we must use our reasoning capabilities and not rely on our faulty sensory perception.
@@delsartealexandermasoeroyo9147 I understand your point and I’m sorry if I cannot explain properly. I agree about the fact that people are most of the time not making use of their leg muscles. But we always need to work out of primary control, taking care of the head, neck and back. Thinking about placing the legs somewhere means end-gaining. This way we go into feelings: what feels “right”. The trap is there waiting for us. We find something and we feel good about it. We think we found truth. We don’t unfortunately.
With the word tension we refer to fixation, rigidity and lack of elasticity. We do tense muscles for example to lift weights, using flexors and substantially bending one isolated joint. When we move our own body, it’s a whole different story. Postural Reflexes take over and we actually need very little tension. The double spiral arrangement of the muscles in the legs (and in the whole body) is activated as general pattern. We move as a coordinated whole, and by following this principle than muscles and joints fall in place. We really need not to interfere with the reflexes, that’s all. And it’s a process, it takes time, it’s not about following the instructions.
Concerning the double spiral arrangement, you can look into Dart’s procedures.
@@kathleendelaney5846 My point has specifically been that many AT teachers who perform monkey can be seen to be bending their back (hollowing the back), protruding the abdomen, and retracting the head. So when you say that the primary control must be primary, I agree to an extent. The position of the feet is less important than the condition of the torso.
Does it not concern you that teachers are massively shortening and narrowing their backs in order to go into monkey? Isn't that an indication of something faulty in their conception of the act?
You say that thinking about placing the legs is end-gaining. I would disagree, but how can you then say that the feet should point out and the knees should considerably widen? Doesn’t that pose the same problem? Isn't that end-gaining in your view?
You’ve already stated that keeping the knees straight ahead produces an uncomfortable feeling of tension for you. I would agree that most people would find the movement uncomfortable because they are not used to experiencing due tension. I’m not at all guiding the movement based on feeling, but it seems you, to some degree, are.
I really reject the notion that “thinking” about how you place any part of the body is wrong. Thinking is not the problem. Here’s a quote from Alexander himself:
“The primary principle involved in attaining a correct standing position is the placing of the feet in that position which will ensure their greatest effect as base, pivot, and fulcrum, and thereby throw the limbs and trunk into that pose in which they may be correctly influenced and aided by the force of gravity.”
I don’t actually fully agree with that, but I do think it quite obviously shows that thinking about how you place your feet is not something that is an issue.
I must say, I think you’re confused on the idea of tension. I know it’s commonly considered a bad word (rigidity as well) in the AT world, but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Elasticity requires tension. If an elastic tissue has no tension, it’s limp and malfunctioning. Without rigidity, there can only be collapse. A lack of tension is a serious problem.
Part of the confusion is that you seem to be talking about specific muscles, while I’m talking about the fascial system. Fascia must be taut to function. Yes, it’s certainly possible for specific muscles to be overworked and to be too tense, but that will mean that other muscles are underworking and lack tension. Simply removing tension will not fix the problem, it will make it worse. The only way for overworked muscles to be able to stop overworking is to bring due tension to not just the musculature as a whole, but to all the fascia and connective tissues of the body.
The idea that posture is entirely reflexive is completely counter to everything that Alexander said and taught. It’s also contradicted by modern science. You say we should not interfere with the reflexes. You can have that view, but then wouldn’t you think Alexander is completely wrong? His entire point was that we can use our conscious mind to rationally guide and control how we use our bodies. It sounds like you don't believe that. It sounds like you think this is not a rational process.
I'm familiar with Dart and the double spirals, but I'm asking if you can explain how that translates to something you can specifically do with your legs as you go into monkey. I don't see how it makes sense to say you should activate one spiral to go up and one to go down, and I don't see how you could verify that you are doing so.
1:10 BRO THATS A FAKE! IT MJ! LOL U BELIEVING THIS sh
She’s falling buddy, these are safe falling techniques. Not levitating ones 😂 Read what’s under the photos 🤨🙄
1:11 this is fake....
What is it that is fake?
Individuals must use innate body consciousness