Michael Miller Pilates

Michael Miller on Classical Pilates

Many of my students go off after learning the idea of Pilates in pursuit of more. They often end up in programs claiming to teach classical Pilates. Then I get questions about what they’re being taught versus what they have learned from me. They’re told the program doesn’t teach this or that because it’s not classical, and yet the program teaches other material that is not present in the original body of Joseph Pilates’ work.

Classical is defined as “a pattern of usage sanctioned by a body of literature rather than everyday speech.”  In this case it would be the body of literature left to us by Joseph Pilates. Anything that comes to us from that body of literature can be considered classical. Anything outside of that body of literature is not classical.

So, if you are in a program that teaches the Pilates Mat exercises called Tree, Scissors, Double Leg Lower Lift or Elbow to Knee, these are not classical, so the program is not strictly offering classical Pilates.

The confusion arises when these programs are asked why isn’t some other exercise taught and they reply because it isn’t classical. Is calling what they are teaching classical Pilates accurate? And if they’re not really teaching classical Pilates, then what are they really offering and trying to pass off as classical Pilates? If classical Pilates comes down to being what I or we say it is, how legitimate is the claim of classical? To what extent is the claim that you teach classical Pilates really just a veneer to say that what you teach is better than everybody else because of who you are and what you say it is rather than what you teach as being truly classical?

If you are really passionate about Pilates you want to learn everything there is to know. And more importantly, you want to understand what it is. You want an answer to “Why!” And so like salmon swimming upstream to the source, the closer you get to the classical work the better the understanding to be had of what it all means, and why it is what it is. This is why it is a huge commercial draw to claim that you teach classical Pilates. But if you’re teaching some stuff that isn’t classical, and excluding other stuff because it isn’t classical, the claim of teaching classical Pilates falls short of the reality.

The problem is that you can’t get what you’re looking for from just the traditional presentation of classical Pilates. You can’t get to the “Why!” And everyone that ever studied with Joseph Pilates, or anyone that learned from somebody that studied with Joseph Pilates, adds their everyday speech and dilutes the classical, without ever getting to the “why?” of the original work.

Michael Miller Pilates shows you the “Why!” directly within classical Pilates. How is that possible? Let me make a comparison.

Egyptian hieroglyphics are classical. They are part of a body of literature that has been passionately studied for generations. There were meanings conjured up for each image. Much like Pilates is called a repertoire, each exercise having its own meaning, each hieroglyph was taken to have its own meaning. And then the Rosetta Stone was unearthed. The Rosetta Stone revealed that each hieroglyph was more than just a pictograph. The Rosetta Stone revealed that each hieroglyph was a letter in an alphabet!

Hieroglyphics were now seen in a new, deeper, more meaningful way. Not only could classical hieroglyphics be better understood and read as a language, you could use classical hieroglyphics to communicate in new creative ways, expanding your understanding of their past and enriching your use of them in the future. Of course, most people prefer to communicate in a more modern language, but the comparison to classical Pilates before and after the idea fits.

The idea is the Rosetta Stone of Pilates. Before seeing the ideal within the classical, there was only a repertoire, a collection of exercises that weren’t seen as part of a bigger picture. After the idea, each exercise made sense as part of a larger whole. And this is the “Ah Ha!” moment. When things make sense you understand why it is what it is. Then you can judge for yourself what is classical and what is not.

Once you understand the language of classical Pilates you can speak it as you wish. Your understanding of the ideal within the classical takes you to a whole new level. Your classical roots are thicker and deeper than they ever could be without the idea. Your teaching expands beyond rote recitation of classical material, into creative and appropriate application that is uniquely yours. You know why Pilates is what it is; you know what the target is (yes, there is a target--a state of being in the body in the moment of the doing); and most importantly, you know how to hit the target! (for any body with any issue)

Programs that make a big deal out of archival material that they have that no one else does would have you believe that knowing more words in the dictionary matters more than being aware that grammar exists. When you understand the grammar of the language you need a lot less words to communicate. So, once you know the grammar, secret archives are intriguing but not imperative.

By all means, learn as much classical as you can. It’s not difficult, all you really need is Joe’s book, “Return to life through Contrology.” And there is more, but not a lot. That’s why some programs make a big deal out of having something that’s not out in the general public. The point is that “Return to Life through Contrology” is out in public. It is the classical work of Joseph Pilates. And within that book alone, you can come to the idea.

The idea comes from three things in “Return to Life through Contrology”, the definition, the promise, and the sequence. To me, that seems pretty classical. The more you come to understand the idea, the less vague claims of being classical matter.

So, I get asked, “Isn’t what you teach classical?” I laugh, and say, “Gee, I think so. The whole idea comes straight from Joe’s book. But there is a good way for you to find out. Subscribe to my web site at hermit.com. It’s all of $20 for a year’s subscription. On that web site is the most complete database of information in existence documenting the classical Pilates body of literature. Compare what you find there to what exists of Joe’s original work and you will have your answer.”

The final point I want to make about classical Pilates, is that without the idea, “classical”, no matter how pure or diluted only takes you so far.

Michael Miller Pilates takes you where you want to go--to the destination of understanding “why” it is what it is and how to hit the target of your aim.  No other brand of Pilates does that.

So, now I hope all of you who understand the idea, will feel reassured that what you might get taught as classical may be less so than claimed, and will never eclipse the ideal which is within what is truly classical.

Michael Miller

© 2009 Michael Miller
All rights reserved.

The Slings and Arrows of Forum Interaction

 

 

(Michael Miller’s comments are in parenthesis.)

My interest is in asking all fellow teachers their opinions.

One of my missions has to do with how the work of JH and Clara Pilates (if you’re going to reduce Joseph Hubertus to JH, I’d like to request you do the same to Clara and refer to her as C) lands in the minds of the public. …asking all teachers and enthusiasts their ideas about pilates towards a definition of the classical viewpoint. I see this as a first step towards consensus on the classical community perspective on the teaching of pilates. (I just have to roll my eyes at this. It assumes a consensus could achieve a perspective on the teaching of Pilates. Pilates is what it is. Pilates is a reality all its own. You either acknowledge the reality or you choose to ignore it.)

PS As I have never studied with you (Michael Miller), (that’s right, why is that? And why, in spite of that do you assume you can comprehend, let alone “resonate” whatever that means, with what I’m saying?) all I can do is to try and resonate with what you are saying. I understand Michael Miller Pilates to be a brand, and therefore a type of model. (A brand is not a model. No, not “therefore”; it’s a gross assumption on your part, made primarily to drag my “brand” into your use and interest of models. My “brand” represents a class of goods distinguished by a point of view identified by name as the product of a single firm or manufacturer—that would be Michael Miller Pilates. For it to be a brand it has to be characteristic and distinctive. My brand represent a distinctive view of Pilates that can be sold by Michael Miller Pilates and used and protected as a trademark. Michael Miller Pilates is global, highly regarded and extremely marketable.)

(A model applies to something taken or proposed as worthy of imitation <a decor that is a model of good taste>. The Michael Miller Pilates brand is more then worthy of imitation; it implies the best possible exemplification either in reality or in conception <never found a job that matched his ideal>)

 

If you are ever interested in how I believe* it resonates with AIM, a model for communication about movement and embodiment practices, I would be happy** to have a conversation. (I apologize; I’m only interested in the reality of Pilates. To me it is so important to recognize what it is in its essence, how it “resonates” with anything else is secondary to understanding the reality for what it is.)

* Of course, this is only what I perceive thus far, with only limited exposure to your idea. I would never assume to understand its relation to AIM and of course, there is absolutely no intention to absorb or approve your model in any way. (It’s not my model, it’s Joe’s statement of reality. To try to put your AIM on the same level as Joe’s method is “misguided”.) AIM doesn’t change models; it just helps to communicate about them. (So, it needs to be obvious that Joe’s method is NOT a “model”.)

**I am not so happy with your characterization of me and/or my intention; it was quite annoying to read that. However, as a professional, I can let it go and let it flow….Peace. (Yea, peace to you, too. If anyone read the text that led up the characterization they might come to the same conclusions as I did.)

XOXO

And if the body-mind-spirit are connected why can't an idea be understood in the body? (Gosh, I don’t even know how to approach this question. Candice Pert comes to mind. They are more than connected, they are one, and the understanding comes within the one.)

XOXO

Michael Miller to me:

"To me you now qualify as condescending, sanctimonious and supercilious."

Ahhhh, communication. Don't you love it? (To only quote the conclusion without that which brought it about, is to sensationalize for one’s own agenda. I stand by what I’ve already said: If anyone read the text that led up the characterization they might come to the same conclusions as I did.)

XOXO

Michael Miller states, "If Pilates were only a tradition, this is where we would all be headed, towards being a PT and taking what we know to help a client with their issues."
I begged to differ and began a conversation about it. (No, you dragged comment out of one forum, and plopped it into the shark infested waters of your own forum, to create a feeding frenzy that you hoped to preside over, assuming a position of superiority, but not conversing directly about it with me but tossing it out for your readers to respond. It’s one of the reasons I discourage others to participate in forums because of their self-serving agendas.)

XOXO

I also have several "community gigs," which fall under the AIM Macro Model, one of which is helping to make sure that the classical viewpoint is acknowledged in the process of professionalizing pilates. (“Professinalizing Pilates” Really? And what might that mean?  Seems to me you are trying hard to characterize Pilates as a model to be incorporated into your model perspective of the world. ) I believe it will take more than just one person's insight into the essence of pilates to clarify a profession that has as huge a scope as pilates. (Funny, really funny. As though consensus can arbitrarily determine reality. Reality is what it is, whether it’s one person pointing to it or everyone.)

XOXO

I think it would be great if Mr. Miller were able to lend his idea(s) to the mix. That's all. And, he did, to a degree, and it was very helpful. (The only degree I did was the degree you were/are willing to listen, which isn’t much.)

As Michael Miller says, "you have to press the flow to find the fusion." I agree that is absolutely sometimes necessary. And...it is also a personal choice.
As I would never press or override a client's personal process, so would I also never press a fellow teacher towards something he/she is not interested in. That would never be my intention. (Your comments belie your statement that you understand what you are agreeing to. By equivocating what I say in the way that you do, makes it apparent that you have no clue what I’m talking about.)

XOXO

 

To me, you are clear in what your idea is. (To me you have never demonstrated in what you write that you have any understanding of what that idea it, where it comes from, and what it means to the Pilates community.)

 

XOXO

 

Note 8/4/09:
*MM wrote on his blog to me 7/31/09: "(I wish you’d drop the acronym IMHO. The connotation does not match the denotation. Just have an opinion and don’t try to convince me of your attitude towards your self.)"
My sensibility on the term IMHO is different. It is a courtesy to whom I am speaking as I am aware that mine is not the only truth; "A disclaimer of sorts, used on blogs, message boards, forums etc.; used to clarify that the statement being made should not be quoted as a fact, but only as an opinion." I, like Michael Miller, am also abundantly confident in my perspective, however, I would never characterize myself as egotistical and arrogant in relation to others. (Only I would do that in hyperbole of my characterization within these trenches.)

To me, it's not all about control. Coordination comes more to my mind...: )  (Well, whatever comes to your mind, Joe called his method Contrology. For me, a student of his method, abiding by his label, it IS all about control. You get to the control, through the coordination of body, mind and spirit, but let’s not put the cart before the horse.)

 

 

AASI is a community of dialogue dedicated to the vision of embodiment and societal change inspired by J. H. Pilates and to enhancing communication in the cooperative networks of pilates teachers and enthusiasts everywhere. (Well expressed. I am interested in Contrology rather than the societal change it has inspired.)

 

XOXO

 

If I am confused as to what MM means, oh well, I'm doing my best to understand MM's written word. MM wrote: "But no, you can’t say that to Joe his method was the mat." What? I thought MM was going on Joe's words in saying the mat was the method?...whatever...let's leave that for now. (Let’s not leave it for now! Who are you to say what we do or don’t talk about. Your attitude all plays into your presumption of leadership, which, of course, I challenge.)

I think we can say that the majority of pilates teachers would agree that to perform the mat well is a worthy goal for one's personal practice.  (What the majority of Pilates teachers agrees upon has nothing to do with the reality of Pilates.)

 

XOXO

I have chosen these words towards a more broadly-based statement because of the scientific fact that there are physiological/neurological differences that cause different bodies to experientially feel either the apparatus or the mat as more difficult. This is a huge movement concept discussion in itself, to be addressed later. (Certainly huge. As long as we’re talking about scientific fact, let’s not overlook the “fact” that whatever different bodies feel, they feel it in a reality that is common to us all, a key point about being a true Pilates instructor.)

 

XOXO

 

Part of the mission of AASI (

AIM

Academy

) is to promote pilates as an independent profession, not to be absorbed by the medical model, of which Physical Therapy is a part. With clarification of the above theoretical points, I believe the pilates community can come to boundary agreements regarding scope of practice with its cooperative networks. (Boundary agreements? Cooperative networks? Jeez, Pilates is and of itself. Why abuse it?)

 

XOXO

 

I guess that there are a few who might become enamored with MM’s assertion that his work is based on Joe’s book, but I know for sure that not everyone takes Return to Life as gospel. (More humor. You don’t have to take Joe’s Return to Life as gospel, but that is what it is. Go off, ignore Joe’s book, make Pilates whatever you want, but how can you make of it, whatever you make of it, and call it Pilates, if it isn’t rooted in Joe’s gospel?)

 

XOXO

 

MM saying, “That’s just my view…but it’s Joe’s words” is mighty convenient, huh? I guess some might then suppose that MM’s idea is the best! But, I know for sure that MM is not the only one with ideas. This site is case in point for starters. (This site, “in point” is a perfect example of incomprehension chasing its tail.  Forget MM’s idea. Let’s talk about the reality of Pilates. Then let’s see how many “realities” are out there.)

 

XOXO

 

as long as a person is willing to adhere to the basic rules of discussion and to stand behind his/her words, I'll allow the comment. ((Sanctimonious: hypocritically pious or devout.) I’ve experienced first hand, within the forum that you so devoutly promote what “you” collectively will and won’t allow. You’re lucky so don’t get sued. Instead, you end up with a small group of spiders waiting for unwary visitors.

 

XOXO

 

Mr. Miller also writes (although I am uncertain whom he addresses here):

QUOTE

I think there is only one expression of Contrology. I think that Contrology is the complete coordination of body mind and spirit, and is accomplished in the moment of the doing. Many messengers, just one message, and it’s Joe’s message. If you took the time to learn the message, you wouldn’t be so focused on the messenger. But you don’t really want to learn the message, because then you would lose the freedom to make Pilates personalized to whatever you want. Wouldn’t that be inconvenient?

I have not ever been in the company of Michael Miller to make any conclusion on whether we agree on the physical conditioning side of the method. (Well, isn’t that a fault of yours, more than just an omission that can be dismissed?) This discussion, although it points to it, is not about that. (Really? If not this, then what??) I don't believe that any online conversation would be able to fully address that. (Then what are you here for?)

The fundamental difference, it seems, between my viewpoint of what I understand the mental conditioning side of the pilates method to be and Mr. Miller's idea of Contrology is revealed in the above quotes. (Wrong) And, it would take a quite a bit of time for me to write about it to any level of satisfaction. Here, I'll be very brief. (First you say you can’t talk about it to any degree of satisfaction, then you say you’ll be very brief. How can that be?)

I'd first like to say that it's my experience that semantic arguments come about when assumptions are being made, and Mr. Miller's comment(s) are rife with them. (And yours aren’t?! Give me a break. Why don’t you define “semantic arguments” instead of using it as a tool of intimidation?) As a communicator, I can set that aside. (Really?!) I make no assumptions on what others want to do or not in relation to embodying the ideas/work/essence of JHPilates. I simply trust that we here are all on that path and that makes us a community. (Well, then why don’t you participate as an equal member of that community, instead of trying to direct the herd?)

I interpret Mr. Miller's statement to mean that he believes that Pilates has only one expression, or message. (No, experience: the complete coordination of body, mind and spirit.) As Mr. Miller himself has touched upon the essence of that message in his practice of Contrology, he has chosen to be a messenger of that essence. I interpret Mr. Miller to believe that a personalized expression of Pilates is mutually exclusive from the essence of the message (just the opposite! What do I have to say to help you hear where I’m coming from?) that he delivers in his teachings. [Please note that Mr. Miller uses a capital letter "P" when referring to Pilates as a practice.] (And you make what of this? Jeez, it’s a personal pronoun, and even in semantics personal pronouns are capitalized.)

The fundamental difference is that I believe that each person has an essence (I ask, what in existence does not have an essence?), and pilates (I use a lower case) is expressed through each person's body, mind, and spirit to the chosen level of commitment to his/her practice of pilates.  (This is just totally lame. You think this statement has any semantic integrity at all? It’s not about persons, it’s about the essence of experience open to all persons. This is the fundamental point of Pilates being a two way street. Every person can reach for the essence of the experience.)

There was only one JH Pilates, with a capital "P." JHPilates described himself as a director of physical culture.* To my knowledge, in his writings, never once did JHPilates describe himself as a spiritual consultant. (So? You think that’s what I’m saying?)

It is my firm belief that each person is entitled to his/her personalized practice and expression of pilates. (True, but that doesn’t make Pilates a subjective target.) This is what makes pilates the phenomenon that it has become. (What makes Pilates the phenomenon that it has become is that it has an essence that gives reward no matter how subverted or diluted it becomes.) We each have our own way of defining pilates for ourselves. (THAT DOESN’ T MAKE IT SUBJECTIVE!! IF IT DID, PILATES WOULD HAVE NO ESSENCE. And, of course, I believe it has an essence.) Others may resonate with that definition or not. (Resonate, what is it with you and resonate?)

What we are attempting in this discussion is to define our perspectives on the definition of "pilates" towards the possibility of a professional consensus. (Impossible. Vain. It is not an issue of consensus; it’s a matter of recognition.) For that, we need to discern the focus during our personal and professional practices. The words physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual have different meanings to different people, as do the words body, mind, and spirit. IMHO, as a community, we'd have to begin there, if we were to make any sense at all of our interpretation of the words of JHPilates, "complete coordination of body, mind, and spirit."

(RIGHT. Focus on the meaning of “spirit” and the reality of Pilates unfolds.)

XOXO

 

I just want to wear my old Philosophy Professor hat (Jeez, you pull that hat out every time you want to intimidate and subjugate your readers. I’m not sure that hat ever fit in the first place. You make me think of the movie Armageddon where they get into comparing intellectual bedpans.  Spare me. I’m not impressed, or intimidated.) for a moment [I always keep it handy for times like this ]. MM, as I read him now and have read him over the years, truly believes that there is an essential truth to Pilates (I do.)  that is somehow beyond Joseph Pilates (I do not.), beyond the exercises (I REALLY DO NOT. The exercises carry the essence.), beyond the performance or teaching of the exercises [which is why Clara is expendable and unimportant] (Clara is irrelevant because the sequence of the exercises, which carries the reality of Pilates, was in existence before Joe ever boarded the boat and met her. The reality of the method was established BEFORE Clara arrived on the scene.) , and is beyond the ability of most of us to understand. (Not at all, any open minded, rational person can look at the reality and get to the meaning.)

That fluorescent truth, whatever it may be, is for MM found in the continued performance and perfection of the complete advanced mat. (It’s the REALITY. Read Joe’s book.)

Now this essentialism (so you take what I say, and inappropriately give it a label “essentialism” and then pursue to dismiss and discredit what I say under that label. It may work for some of your readers but not anyone with a discerning intellect.) bothers me on a number of levels, most importantly because it is exclusionary [excludes any other point of view]. When MM says,

"If you took the time to learn the message, you wouldn’t be so focused on the messenger. But you don’t really want to learn the message, because then you would lose the freedom to make Pilates personalized to whatever you want. Wouldn’t that be inconvenient?"

I think, what is wrong with freedom to interpret, personalize, and carry Pilates forward? (Everything if you don’t recognize and acknowledge what Pilates is in the first place.) and Why is there only one interpretation, one essential truth, one way to go? (The ways to go are infinite, but where you go from is the reality of Pilates.)

Could it be that Joe Pilates published the mat exercises in Return to Life because they were in a booklet for anyone to read and they could be done anywhere without needing equipment and that it's that simple, nothing magical there? (Could be, and is, and that sequence that you want to make so light of, is the same sequence that existed over the 40 years of Joe’s professional life, unchanged by him. I wonder why that is?)

Could it be that Joe Pilates also felt the apparatus to be intrinsic and that's why he developed the small convertible Wunda Chair [use it as a chair in your apartment, flip it and attach the springs and it's exercise equipment], the Magic Circle [a marketing name if I ever heard one], and said that every home, school, and hospital should have a wunda chair? How about the time he spent working on a portable universal reformer [another great marketing name, huh?]? Or giving his clients springs to travel with and use? (The apparatus is important. It is intrinsic to the pursuit of performing the mat. That’s the reality of how the equipment came into existence, and what its ultimate use is for.)

Many different stories can be told here, and my point is simply that I don't really think it matters whether or not there is some essential truth behind Pilates. (Wow, not me. How can you pursue something if you don’t understand its characteristics? Even if it doesn’t have an ideal within it?) From a practical standpoint it works and has withstood the tests of time and experience.  (From a practical standpoint, and the facts, it does work, and has withstood the test of time.  I wonder why?)

You know, Joe Pilates always wanted acceptance by the medical model and part of his disgust with people as he aged was the fact that even in the face of all the practical evidence, including Eve Gentry after the mastectomy, they would never accept him or his work. (And I can explain why.) But his dislike doesn't necessarily need to bleed into our work decades later, nor should it be viewed as part of his essential philosophy. (Really, and this “should” you espouse is backed up by what? Oh yea, that philosophy hat of yours. Don’t let it fall off; someone might have doubts about your credibility.)

 

XOXO

 

Thanks for expressing those thoughts. I am guessing his comments about focusing on the messanger are directed to my post (but I don't want to assume here) about his message being the ONLY one he will accept as the truth.

In fact I did take the time to learn the message, as a paying member of his site for almost 10 years I have read it and heard it and believed it and interestingly it gave me the freedom to personalize Pilates and express it in a way that is true to my body, mind and spirit. (I thank you for your kind words. If you wouldn’t mind, the next time you CLAIM you have learning the message, expound on the nature of spirit and how it plays into my message.)

 

XOXO

 

What is fascinating about this discussion is the central role that MM and his essentialism is playing here. Essentialism tends to have that polarizing effect. Without downgrading anyone's path to Pilates freedom, I don't think that everyone needs to believe an essentialist message to find Pilates in their own mind, body, spirit. (It’s not “essentialism”, some term almost nobody understands, and used to dismiss what I’m saying. There is a reality to the experience of Pilates.  Each person reaches for the same experience when they truly want what Pilates has to offer: the complete coordination of body, mind and spirit.)

I also wonder, do you still believe it?

Was it the fluorescent essence of Pilates that deepened your connection to the work or was it the process of learning, doing, and teaching Pilates for the 10 years? (Oh, it must have been the process, and nothing to do with the message. How obvious can you be?)

From his blog responses to us it does seem that MM believes that his idea is THE ONE that will be vindicated at some point or another, and that until we all accept it and let it in we will be fighting. (IT’S NOT MY IDEA! IT’S THE REALITY OF PILATES!! Pilate is what it is. Either you accept that or you make up whatever you want. That’s just the way it is with reality.)

Call me an annoying skeptic, (You’re not annoying, you’re not even a skeptic. You’re just someone who has an invested interest in seeing something other than the reality of Pilates.) but I am just not buying it! (I’m not selling it; I’m pointing to it.) The same way I don't buy organized religion, or any other essentialist position. (Reality is what it is; religion comes after.) I am fine with a bit of confusion and uncertainty in my world. I am fine with re-exploring and re-defining my body and how it moves on a daily basis. I am fine with being open to the bodies that come before me and crafting a mind-blowing pilates workout for that body at that hour on that day.

 

XOXO

 

Either I'm really obtuse and just don't get it, or MM's current approach is beyond where I'm willing to go. MM's work is.... well, just that I suppose, his work, like Stott Pilates is Moira's work, etc., except instead of Joe's work being guided by the PT voice and shaped into something new (a place I'm not willing to go either), MM's work is being guided by a religious-like voice and shaped into something new. (I’m sorry you see it that way. Maybe I’m the one being obtuse. Obviously, you just don’t get it, because it’s not my work, it’s Joe’s, and heaven forbid that I would ever be compared to Moira or a PT. My work is being guided by the reality of what exits in Joe’s book. Why don’t you learn what I’m saying before you dismiss it?)

In both cases they seem to claim their own approach as the better [or the only right] way, even though it's been morphed from the original source by over-emphasizing one aspect and losing balance [and perhaps in this case, rationality!]. By MM's own words: "Joseph Pilate[s] never put forth Contrology as an idea. I’m the one that says it’s an idea." (So true. The fact that I claim it is an idea, doesn’t change the reality of what the idea is based in. Joe’s definition, Joe’s promise, and Joe’s sequence. Reality is what it is. Get over it, and learn from it.)

In either case, it seems to me to be outside the realm of Pilates.... doesn't sound like Joe was trying to start a religion, but a physical and mental discipline that makes us emotionally uplifted. I suppose the only ones who can answer that for sure are the ones that worked with him.  (Man, is that a huge assumption. Just look at everyone that say they can answer what I mean just because they worked with me. Wrong. It’s not a religion. It has nothing to do with emotion. And just because you knew Joe doesn’t mean you know what he meant.)

IMHO, the promises of Pilates risk being lost when the original has been morphed, or one aspect stressed to the relative exclusion of the others.  (I agree completely. Let’s look at the original and go from there.)

 

XOXO

 

Better offer some transparency on my last post, my thoughts are based on what I've read here and on MM's site. Opinion, as we all have, nothing more. (Well, you could actually study with me. I’m still alive.)

 

XOXO

 

When I began my study of Pilates in earnest, only then did I understand that Pilates is not just exercise and that is when I met Michael Miller. So in answer to your question, I believed because I didn't know.....Michael helped me to discover the amazing aspects of
the body of work created by JHPIlates. It was his passion that was contagious and made me want to go further into my own exploration of body and mind. As for spirit, I am not a religious person, (SEE, you say you know so much about my view and you totally miss the point about spirit!!)  organized or otherwise. But I do feel a spiritual connection as expressed in my relationship with the world and how I relate to living my life. (Spiritual is not the same as spirit. If you understood this you would take a big step towards understanding the reality of Pilates.)

But do I still believe what MM is putting forth....NO...He has changed...the delivery of his message has become dogmatic and I have my own idea now of what Pilates is....for me...and I actually resent his message now because it excludes any idea but his own. (It’s not my idea or your idea, it is the reality of what it is. And I can see how you, and many others, might resent the fact that they can’t make Pilates whatever they feel like.)
I want to edit this to add, that I am sorry to have derided Michael Miller for his pony tail and his Youtube video's. (Well, since when is a blog post sufficient as an apology to an individual?) I was being funny (not to me), but it was hurtful and has nothing to do with the discussion and that might have cause the MM retort's to be so ..sad? (sad? As in pity? Come on! Water off a ducks back. Why don’t you examine why my response was what it was?)... . [I feel like David Letterman after he made fun of Palin's daughter.] (Yes.)

 

 

XOXO

 

When I began this post, I was excited because, at first glance, I thought that the idea of a two-way street might be similar to what I call a reciprocal learning environment. (Just looking for reinforcement to your own opinion, made by others, what kind of a character statement is that?) It is not. It also did not approach the connotation of a cooperative viewpoint, as a two-way street might to most, in my estimation. Oh well. The discussion took a different turn, and has left us with a lot more to discuss. For one, I began a post on Body, Mind, and Spirit....

 

XOXO

 

Pilates practice lands in each mind in its own way. (The practice is subjective, but not what the practice reaches for.) We all have ideas about pilates. (Yes, we do. But our ideas about Pilates is not the same as the idea of Pilates. There is a reality to Pilates that is indisputable.) I once stated on the "I Like It Here" Post that "Pilates is Primary Physical Support for All Faculties." It's something I deeply believe, and I had fun thinking of it, however, I would never expect everyone to agree with me. (Did Copernicus expect everyone to agree that the Earth was not the center of the solar system? Did Einstein expect everyone to agree that E=mc2? Expectations are different than reality.)

 

XOXO

 

 

Besides, honestly, I have always found the ideas of others way more interesting than my own. : ) I can amuse myself to a point, and then I crave conversation [So, I want to get to hearing everyone's ideas]. For me, without external feedback, life in the mind/body would be so much more difficult to navigate. Isn't that what the apparatus is all about? External feedback to respond to gravity? (All about? Well, yes within the context of reaching towards responding to gravity in one’s own body.)

 

XOXO

 

I am struck almost speechless [rare for me in case you haven't noticed] by his response to you. All of our posts are rife with personal jabs and I tried to stay away from doing that in my latest response on his blog...(If they are only personal jabs, why would you try to stay away from them? You feel free to say whatever you want until someone takes offense and then you say, “Oh, it wasn’t the way it sounded.” I find your incredulity incredulous.)

 

XOXO

 

Personally I won't give MM the traffic to go to his site to read what he is saying. I find it ridiculous that he won't engage people where the discussion originates. Let's discuss things here, with the participants, and leave those who think they alone are the only way to be - just that - alone.

 

XOXO

 

As that is my main intent, all I know is that I need to keep placing one foot in front of the other, and keep conversing with fellow teachers. This may not be the choice of every teacher for any number of reasons. It's one thing to teach new teachers one's own work; it's another thing to come together with teachers of different viewpoints and create a common ground. (My point is the common ground already exists. Joseph Pilates created it. This is the Pilates reality. This reality has nothing to do with you as an individual, or any group that reaches for a consensus. Reality is reality.)

 

XOXO

 

I'll just say that I think a main difference might be that the Michael Miller View is considered largely as intellectual in nature, (It is intellectual, it is kinesthetic, it is spirit (not spiritual)) and this is a different style/approach than many here may be used to or interested in. (So true, I suspect primarily uninterested because it takes the subjective aspect out of the reality of Pilates.) It's my sense that many who are attracted to the classical view are looking for a kinesthetic experience, and reading his book might not speak to their interests at this moment. (Those looking for the “classical view” can only find the kinesthetic experience they’re looking for in the reality of Pilates.)

 

XOXO

 

I have read MMs blog with some interest. Until now I have never really understood what he is trying to say and then I read his Pilates story. As he describes the young girl going through her workout it I realized it was a perfect description of classical Pilates. That moment when you are so wrapped up in your workout that it all flows perfectly and the whole body works as a unit, although the mind is controlling the action it doesn’t appear that way as the body responds almost intuitively.

Michael if that’s what you mean by Pilates as an idea then it makes perfect sense, very difficult to articulate and to understand unless you have felt that moment in your body and perhaps for many of us an ideal we will always strive for and never quite get there. (If it weren’t for you I could never be true. The great news is that the more you understand the idea the easier is it to get there, each and every time you do Pilates.)

Of course I may have mis-interpreted you completely and my humble apologies if I have but I still think it was a beautiful description of the perfect workout. (You got it! Thank you for sharing your recognition.)

 

XOXO

 

Yes, I too was speechless at the tone of that reply. Talk about angry, arrogant and sanctimonious.  (Everyone is so speechless, oh me, oh my! Read the transcript. Are you so inured?)

Good Grief, I hope he does not speak that way to his students. (Oh, that you should suggest this, more hyperbole and back to the pony tail.)

He wrote me an email and invited me to get together with him this fall when he comes to present in my area, but after reading that reply to Carole, I am scared.... [I tend to cry when someone yells at me] (Yep, I yell at all my clients. Overcome your fear. It is self serving and melodramatically expressed.)

MM was not like that when I trained with him, he was gracious and a wonderful teacher. His lectures always made perfect sense, how he explained the physics and biology of each exercise and articulated the idea of fluorescence as the target. My mind and body were in each moment of the doing and linked by my spirit which was the enthusiasm, joy and energy I felt when working with him. (I hope people read more from the fact of your experience than the fantasy of your conjecture.)

but I never knew him personally or socialized outside the studio setting. To me he was an incredible teacher (thank you) and to him I suppose I (more fantasy conjecture) was another starry eyed fan who hung on his every word so we got along famously.

However, I think that I hear some bitterness in his writing now. (Whatever it takes to discredit my point of view. If I were bitter I wouldn’t bother writing to you.) It's like he has more to prove because he didn't know Joe first hand and he resents those who did (oh please!), calling them the Aristocracy (they are the aristocracy, they knew Joe!) and claiming it's not what they know, but who they knew that is their claim to fame. (Well? Talk to any of them and ask them what makes Pilates what it is? How many of them have anything, or even much, to say about the method itself, rather than talking about memories? It they didn’t know Joe, what would they have to say of substance about the method? Take any leader. It’s not knowing the leader that matters as much as knowing what the leader stands for. Bitter, no. I choose not to be bitter. Disillusioned? Have been, but even that is something that acceptance dissolves.)

he is authentic in his research and study of Pilates and has much to share and offer. He does not need to discredit anyone to make himself look smarter or more knowledgeable. (That’s right, and I’m not trying to discredit anyone.)

Unfortunately he does not feel the desire or need to hear what anyone else has to say, unless it's to congratulate him for his deft understanding and considerable talents in the realm of Pilates, sort of like The Wizard of OZ. (Hello? Am I the only one that doesn’t understand this comparison to the Wizard of Oz? I do not stand behind a curtain seeking to fool anyone. I stand before you with a clear (accurate) point of view. I’ve reached the stage in my career where I have more to communicate than assimilate. I have a message. You can belittle it, ignore it, hear it and ignore it, hear it and dismiss it, hear it and let it empower you to be a more appropriate and creative instructor rooted in the reality of Pilates.

 

 

XOXO

The Common Ground is the Idea

Dear Carole,

Forgive me if I admit my amusement at your first question of "From whom did you get the suggestion of a two-way treet?" Looking over my shoulder? Wondering where I could have possibly gotten that from? C’est moi. It comes from me. It comes from my meager exposure to the Pilates world.

"Why single out the PT model when Pilates has clearly moved in so many directions?" I know you read what I write, but I’m left wondering if you get anything I’m saying. If Pilates has any essence of it own, it wasn’t (and isn’t) just a collection of influences that have continued to be influenced. If you take influences towards a clients issues, most obviously it seems this is what PTs do, it’s their job. If you take on my view of Pilates being an idea, then what is that idea, and how is it different than taking what you know towards a clients issues? Pilates has moved in so many directions, but all of them are out, away from the essence of what it is. (That is of course if you believe it has an essence.)

I don’t think there are that many teachers on forums. Further, from evidence already present on them the reason they fail to attract significant dialogue is the quality of its leadership, both in its range of comprehension and their supercilious and sanctimonious attitudes. But hey, bird’s of a feather. You assume their "view on whole body and progressing to the mat" is the same as my view. And it’s not. That just doesn’t say enough about what Pilates really is. It only acknowledges the necessity of whole body achieved through the performance of the mat.

I am someone who professes to have an ideal point of view taken directly from Joe’s words. I may know nothing of Pilates. "Pilatical" now there’s an interesting mis-type. It was a mis-type wasn’t it? The combination of Pilates and Political? If you want clarifications from me—invest in my material! Spend $20 bucks. I don’t think you really want clarification. I think your motivations are more personal than that.

"The way I see it, it comes down to how we define the terms we use to describe Pilates. For example, what you call "fluorescence," I might simply call "presence." Does that necessitate a divide between us? If anyone ever suggested that I brand Amend Pilates, I can tell you, that would never happen." I don’t see it the same. It’s more than equivocating terms. I say Pilates is an idea. What do you say Pilates is? I can explain the idea in great detail. I have explained the idea in great detail. You either don’t listen, don’t get it, or refuse to acknowledge it. Just my view. It’s not my way or the high way. My view is not the only way to look at Pilates. If you can explain to me a more ideal way of understanding Pilates, I’m all ears. Tell me. What makes it what it is? What is it?

There’s more than gems in my writing. There’s a message. Am I interested in other people’s viewpoints? (Well, you’ll love this answer.) No, I’m not. I am consumed with communicating my view. My message. If you’re not interested in understanding my message, that’s okay. Leave me alone. Of course, there’s only one problem with doing that—the desperate ground you say is so important right now to come to—the idea is it. Don’t think so? Wanna go find some relativistic, group agreed upon ground, have at it. Eventually, the ground you want and the people that want it will have to understand the idea, before they build anything on that common ground. And that’s not my humble opinion. It’s my heart felt, arrogant, egotistical opinion. And it wouldn’t be that way if I didn’t have so much confidence in what I am talking about.

I don’t see you as a messenger. I also don’t see you as a student. Maybe more of a politician.

----------------------------

Dear Carole,

Just because you are not in disagreement with my view of progressing clients to the mat doesn’t mean that you understand my view of Pilates or the idea I believe inherent within it.

Insignificant. If you understood my view, you would understand my statement about Clara’s insignificance. You don’t. So you choose to insult me by claiming it’s obvious I am unaware of the history of Clara’s participation. Really? You really don’t think I know about Clara? You don’t think I’ve seen the old archival footage and Clara’s relatioship to her students? (100s of times) Heard countless stories of her tenderness, that she was the one to take a delicate client behind a curtain to work with them? What you don’t see, is what I’m saying. The mat makes a point, and the point was made before Clara arrived on the scene.

And ridiculous? Maybe with Madame Curi, I don’t even know if she were married. I was trying to avoid being sexist. But with Einstein? Yea, read your history. There’s a whole following who would credit Einstein’s work to a female companion of his that worked side by side with him. The presence of a companion, no matter how much support given, never compares to the one that makes the original point of their passion.

I’m not discounting the associations to Joe, those deceased, and those alive currently making a living off of telling stories because that’s most of what they have to offer. Once you understand Joe’s message, strolling down memory lane is nice, adds context, color, but not the essential ingredient for credibility.

You say you steer clear of the word "guru" but, it seems to me, you tolerate it in others if it suits your agenda. To say that Joe was an inspiration, is okay for you, if that’s all he is. For me, Joe made a sensational point. He said that control was possible through the complete, coordination of body, mind and spirit. That that is a state of being, in the body, in the moment of the doing, and the means to get there. The means is the performance of his mat, but to say that his method is the performance of the mat is to miss his point altogether. IMAO (in my arrogant opinion.)

Carole, if in some way I didn’t respect what you write, I wouldn’t take the time to write back.

I hope you sense this,

Regards,

Michael

-------------------------------------

My sense of humor comes from the confidence of what I know. My sense of humor comes from those who think they can evaluate me from my bio and their depths of experience. If I can make fire and you can’t, it doesn’t matter how I learned.

-------------------------------------

It’s not my exaggeration that makes me stand out from the crowd. It’s my view, it’s the trademark that can act as a catalytic key to triggering the sensational effect of Pilates.

-------------------------------------

I think there is only one expression of Contrology. I think that Contrology is the complete coordination of body mind and spirit, and is accomplished in the moment of the doing. Many messengers, just one message, and it’s Joe’s message. If you took the time to learn the message, you wouldn’t be so focused on the messenger. But you don’t really want to learn the message, because then you would lose the freedom to make Pilates personalized to whatever you want. Wouldn’t that be inconvenient?

---------------------------------------

Incoming link love, yea that’s me. The record of why I don’t stoop to participate in other forums is there, in those forums, for anyone to evaluate. Your insidious degrading remark included.

----------------------------------------

If you really want to chew on something significant, chew on why Joe moved from "body/mind" in Your Health, to "body, mind and spirit" in Return to Life.

From geist,

and wishing you the same...

Michael Miller

The Defining of Pilates

The Defining of Pilates

 

“Have at it! And have a good day!” (Like a glass bottom boat guide baiting the waters.)

 

Never saw Alycea’s piece on Daisy Fuentes. So what you think right off the bat is presumptuous and wrong.

 

And I grant you that it wouldn’t be your experience or you wouldn’t be spending your time and energy chumming the waters. Anyway…. swimming with sharks is no threat to me. (And why would you presume I might say that?)

 

So, another of your assumptions is that others sharing your view is validation. But validation of what? Just your view. The accuracy of your view, and others who share it, is an entirely different matter.

 

I profess what I have to say in the simplest way I can say it: Pilates is an idea. No matter how many ways you say something, if each way points to the same truth, the way you say it may only help more people get at the underlying truth, but won’t change the truth itself.

 

Why do people hide behind pseudonyms? I use my name.

 

“Big inhale here.....Ummmm...... .... I know Michael............ bigger exhale here........ahhhhhhhhh.” You know me. Really. And that is based upon how much exposure? From how long ago? And from your entry and others it seems that you are making fun of me in this expression. Could you be a little more explicit so I could get the humor here?

 

“He is unique and approaches the work of Joe Pilates as the living breathing embodiment of the man,. as though the words of Joe have been handed to him on stone tablets.” I’m not sure you wrote all the words you meant to.  Are you saying I approach to work as though I am the living breathing embodiment of the man? Naw. The words of Joe have been handed to everyone on stone tablets, in his book Return to Life Through Contrology.

 

Joseph Pilate never put forth Contrology as an idea. I’m the one that says it’s an idea. Joseph defined his work this way: “Contrology is the complete coordination of body, mind and spirit.” (It’s in the stone tablets.) I believe this complete coordination of body, mind and spirit is a state of being in the body, in the moment of the doing. I call that state of being fluorescence, for reasons you either never heard, or can’t remember because it was so long ago. Joe defined it as Contrology; I call achieving the state of Contrology fluorescence.

 

There’s a lot of brands of Pilates, a lot of different ways to view Pilates. I have a particular view of Pilates and as such it is my brand—The Michael Miller Pilates Brand. How many others can you name? Why am I so taken to task because I have my view and call it my brand of Pilates?

 

“flouresence is the key to understanding the sequence of the progression of the MAT. (uniform usage creates uniform balance.)” Fluoresence is not the key; it is the target. The key to understanding my view of Pilates is to be clear about what my view is and where it comes from. As I’ve said, I view Pilates as an idea. The idea is based upon three things right out of Joe’s book: Return to Life Through Contrology. 1) Joe’s definition 2) Joe’s promise 3) Joe’s sequence. Your comment here is really about Joe’s promise. In the paragraph right after Joe defines his method he states, “Contrology develops the body uniformly…” It is based upon that statement in his book (again the stone tablets) that I say: “To fulfill the promise of uniform development requires uniform usage.” You know, “whole body.” If you don’t agree with me there, and it seems the ranks are growing of those believing you can get to uniform development via development of, and focus on pieces and parts, we disagree. And you can pursue your view of Pilates without paying any attention to my view. In my experience most people in the know agree Pilates is a whole body exercise. It takes uniform usage to get uniform development.

 

As for understanding the sequence of the progression of the MAT (I like the way you capitalize MAT) all you have to do is look at the physics involved and you see the body moving out away from center getting heavier as the sequence develops.  It’s about weight bearing, it’s about loading. Further when you look at the sequence in its entirety you see a basic pattern of movement—flexion, extension, side bending and rotation. (from simple to complex so it’s progressive) So both in regards to loading and movement patterns the sequence is progressive.

 

“The truth is that his private sessions were really awesome.” Thank you, and isn’t that the acid test of legitimacy?

 

“However in the last several years he has come to define himself as the last and only word in teaching the method and even it seems tries to channel Joe while he is speaking.” I feel I’m being misunderstood, which is why I’m going to the effort to respond to these remarks. I’m not the last and only word. Joe is the last and only word.  And tell me, how is it that I try to channel Joe? It sounds to funny. As though the assertion is a lame attempt to discredit what I make out of what Joe wrote.  I’m not trying to channel Joe; I’m trying to make sense of what he wrote.

 

“Is this a Patriarchal view taken to it's zenith? I wonder...” What do you wonder? If Joe was really a man?

 

“It's too bad as he does have really good things to say, but To be fair I have not seen him in person in quite a while. It’s his youtube video's that are just sooo annoying.” What is too bad? And what is so bad that it discounts or disqualifies the good things I have to say? Fair? You haven’t seen me in quite a while. Amazing how strong your opinions are for your lack of up to date information.  And please tell me, and the world, what’s “sooooo annoying” in my YouTube videos. Maybe if you pointed me to your videos on YouTube, I could get a comparison to see the error of my efforts.

 

I fail to see how my efforts to make a living teaching my view of Pilates is addressed in the Daisy Fuentes, Wii Pilates post made by Alycea on P-pro.

 

 

I love it when you say you’ve known me for close to a decade. You’ve known “of” me for close to a decade. You met me 10 years ago. Haven’t seen me since and now have this informed judgment that I’ve “fallen deeper into his own Joe cult, badmouthing those who disagree with him. It’s his way or it’s not Pilates.”  Well jeez, where do I start responding to that? Maybe no response is best.  “my own Joe cult” and “fallen” whew! Thank goodness you have such insight. And please, point to where I’ve badmouthed anyone who disagreed with me. I think it’s Joe’s way, or it’s not Pilates.

 

“why is the complete mat a mightier feat than Balance Control on the Reformer? Or Airplane on the Cadillac? Tendon Stretch on the Chair? Teaser on the Barrel?” Because to achieve Contrology you have to press the flow to find the fusion of body, mind and spirit.

 

Clients have their goals; I have mine. As a Pilates teacher my goal is to help a client achieve Contrology by performing the mat. (on their own)

 

 

“I see his points, but I don't agree with his delivery.”  It’s not my delivery that matters. What matters is that you see my points.

 

 

“Personally, I think his description is too wordy and confusing.”  I wish I could do better; I’ve been refining the words for a long time. How can I be less confusing?

 

 

“Is what we are learning and teaching what he envisioned as his work?” Concisely!

I would say that unless you can envision the ideal within his work, you will never know the answer.

 

“Michael teaches some of them, so I guess Joe is not whispering in his ear.” Funny, you waffle on your characterization of me. Of course, I’m not channeling Joe.  If I’m teaching some exercises that Joe didn’t teach, but there is an ideal within what Joe did teach, then if the exercises are true to the ideal, don’t they qualify as Pilates? (take for instance, scissors, double leg lower lift, elbow to knee, mermaid)

 

 

“The message can easily lose credibility when the delivery is questionable.” Sure it can, but not necessarily, and certainly not for anybody bright enough to discern the message from the messenger.

 

“IMHO, it’s very important to note this. I don’t know Michael (I have only spoken to him once long ago over the phone), but I am certain that one idea of Pilates is that it’s not necessary to be following a guru. Are men more prone to falling into that trap than women?
Thanks to Lee for letting that cat out of the bag. I think a discussion of the patriarchal view will lead us to knowing that we all owe a lot to Clara.” Oh please! It needs to be a humble opinion due to its credibility. You don’t know me, but you’ve got an opinion, based upon some long ago conversation over the phone. So go right ahead. Sophistry, unintended is still what it is. You’re “certain that one idea of Pilates is that it’s not necessary to be following a guru.” It’s not an idea of Pilates you’re talking about. It’s an idea of coming to understand something. Understanding can come in three years or three seconds, alone or with guidance. And you want to turn it into something sexist? And you’re supposed to be leading this discussion? (This is why I don’t post directly to your site. Too few people having too much to say.)

 

“I think a discussion of the patriarchal view will lead us to knowing that we all owe a lot to Clara.” I think you’re wrong, plain and simple wrong. (And we have a right to disagree.) Your kind of argument would want to talk about what we owe to Einstein’s girlfriend or Madame Curie’s husband. Here’s why I say this: I believe the mat is the method. The mat existed way before Joe ever stepped foot on the boat to

America

. Whatever we owe to Clara is insignificant compared to Joe’s creation of the mat. I’ve seen it throughout the years, people wanting to emasculate Joe and make out Clara to be the real deal. It’s Joe’s method, fact. Joe was a man, fact. It would be pretty tough not to call him a guru. You going to take away his method because he was a guy? You going to take away or undercut my view of Pilates because I’m a guy? You’d better think twice about where you’re coming from.

 

“PS Lee, I've seen the youtube videos, and your "Big inhale here.....Ummmm...... .... I know Michael............ bigger exhale here........ahhhhhhhhh" I have to say, really gave me a good chuckle (sorry, MM).” I said before the humor I created escapes me, so obviously I don’t see the need to apologize. Given your views just prior to this “insider” exchange, I am more embarrassed for you than you could ever be sorry to me.

 

 

“On patriarchy: it appears that MM's irony sensors are off.” On some things I’m not very bright. Maybe you could explain this one to me?

 

 

“Getting back to Michael's statement, I hear his generosity in being inclusive of all ways. However, I believe we need to take a stand and decide to say what it was for Joe...and call that pilates...to have a common ground.
Can we say that to JHPilates, it was the Mat?” You don’t hear anything I’m saying. The mat is the method. That the simple statement. But no, you can’t say that to Joe his method was the mat. Joe defined his method as Contrology is the complete coordination of body mind and spirit. He says when you do it Contrology it produces a uniformly developed body. And doing it is doing the mat. You do the mat to achieve the complete coordination of body, mind and spirit. That’s just my view…but it’s Joe’s words. (those tablets again)

 

 

“I do not know this MM person at all, never heard of him before this conversation. I went to Ytube and watched ONE video (the longest one I could find). Like Reinbeau:
I see his points, but I don't agree with his delivery.” Having looked at your website and come to appreciate the depth of your experience, I’m thrilled that from only one YouTube video you can see my points. Don’t let the messenger get in the way of the message. Especially if he’s got a pony tail!  By way of explanation, my gesticulation comes from traveling around the world and having so many translators. It became apparent that my “charades” pre-empted words and reached a deeper more intuitive understanding. And it even works English to English.

 

 

“I hasten to add that I have not worked with him in more than a decade and in that time, the pony tail has become thinner but his persona has indeed morphed as he sold himself and his brand.

It's a shame really as now he seems a parody of a Guru, like something you might see on a Saturday Night live skit.”

 

Gosh, that feels good. Lee, why don’t you make up your mind? You hate me. You love me. You hate me. And all this characterization based upon more than a decade ago in time, and the inability to articulate my view of Pilates. And everyone is so willing, eager really, to dismiss the message because they find fault with the messenger. Why is this? Why is this? Is it the messenger that is unacceptable, or the message? Ah, there’s the cutting question. I make sense, way back then, and still today. But you don’t want to admit how much sense it makes, so you fall into degrading the messenger. Doesn’t matter. Those that get the message, don’t care about the messenger, and are becoming the backbone of seeing Pilates as an idea. The only view? No way. Expansion, remember? And of all the ways to look at Pilates, this is just my way, a very clear and concise way, that’s based directly on the words of Joseph Pilates.

 

Now if I can just get that gig on Saturday Night Live, do you think I should wear my hair down or back in a pony tail?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Un-edited version of what appeared in PilatesStyle Magazine without the editor added diminutive title of Teacher's Pet or "fellow teacher":

"I was delighted to  see that the last issue of Pilates Style featured an article on The Pilates Center of Boulder, where I take class twice a week. Every good thing you said about it is absolutely true. I was even more delighted when I read the Success Story article about Steve Hobson, and he credited his study with Michael Miller "a teacher who finally and fully conveyed to me the physicality of Pilates--something that up until then had been missing for me."
 
Michael Miller has been my teacher for over 9 years. His passion for teaching is the reason why I am passionate about Pilates, because he gives the Method a "why." He travels the world teaching Pilates teachers that Pilates is an Idea; the reason that it works. He teaches through sensation, so the student feels in his or her own body the Idea of Pilates. 
 
An article about Michael would be great in Pilates Style. He is unusual, intelligent, well spoken, and an inspiration to teachers around the world. Michael started out playing team sports in football, basketball and track. He came to Pilates through many of the same paths that Joseph Pilates traveled. The Pilates Michael teaches is classical, based directly on the work of Joseph Pilates. With his own understanding of why Joe's method works, Michael brings a depth to what he teaches that is unsurpassed. He also teaches through the internet  with a website for which he is the sole developer and designer. It includes photos of the exercises which are invaluable aids for the teacher and the student. He offers training videos and dvds that he personally produces. Everything you see there is 100% Michael Miller.
 
Please check out Michael's website at www.hermit.com and see for yourselves. Some of the site is restricted to sbscribers, but for $20/year it's well worth the price. You can't go wrong learning more about this great Pilates teacher and scholar. "

Pilates - Advanced Mat Class & Idea Training in Zurich

Wednesday May 20th, 2009   Michael Miller Pilates Advanced Mat Class THIS MAT CLASS IS GONNA ROCK!  "35 MINUTE MAT"   19:00  - 20:00   Mats are available   door opens at 18:30   30 CHF   Michael Miller Pilates Certification Training   Pilates as an idea   20:00 - 22:00    70 CHF Both 90 CHF   Zentrum Karl der Grosse Kirchgasse 14 8001 Zurich, Switzerland   Closest tramstation: Rudolf-Brun Brücke   Next parking: Hohe Promenade. Guest instructor: Michael Miller   Speaks and teaches in English Michael Miller is the founder and director of the Michael Miller Pilates Brand. Michael Miller Pilates is unique in that it professes Pilates to have an ideal nature that comes straight from Joseph Pilates: his definition of his method, his promise of what doing his method will provide you, and his sequence of exercises he documents in words, photos, and film. Michael Miller Pilates is recognized throughout the world.  Visit website www.hermit.comand blog.   Instructors and experienced mat students only   Reservations 076 756 0969 michaelmillerpilates@hotmail.com

Eye Test Challenge

Most Eye Tests are a test of perceived alignment between two images.

In this Eye Test, the challenge is to perceive the difference between many images and put them in a logical order. In this case, the requested order is an order that makes sense according to the idea of Pilates.

This is meant to be a teaching test. Sure, you can subscribe and see the order suggested, but if you are $20 short of a year long subscription you can make suggestions or ask questions here and see if others (including me) can help you pass the test.

You can see the test here.

Push Up Images

The Push Up is the last exercise of the Pilates Matwork because it is the most challenging. You are trying to create uniform usage in one long arc of flexion from your most extreme endpoints.

 

Subscribers can view accompanying images here.

Reformer Breast Stroke

In the Reformer Breast Stroke Exercise it is customary to spot the performer's ankles to facilitate the lift into extension. Regan Hoerster shows that if you lead with the arms it is possible to attain the extension desired without being spotted at the ankles.

 

Subscribers can click here to see video.

Chair with Roller Exercises

Kipling Solid (Solid Bodies of Highland Park, Illinois) loves to take the traditional work to new heights of challenge. Here she applies the Roll Up to the Low Chair and the Roller. If you try this, be careful!

 

Subscribers can see more exercises with the combination of Low Chair and Roller here.