“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
“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?
Dear Michael,
Thanks for reading the post on the AIM Academy Forum. And thanks for clarifying that you did not read Alycea's post on the Wii. I wondered about that.
If you read all the way through, I think you will find that I was asking for clarification on a few points:
From whom did you get the suggestion of a two-way street?
Why single out the PT model when pilates has clearly moved in so many directions?
Are you not aware that so many teachers on the PCDB take your view on whole body and progressing to the mat?
It's been stated several times in the post you cite and elsewhere on the PCDB(did you overlook those statements?)that classical teachers take this view. I was always taught that the apparatus helps a body to progress to the mat. I dare say that, at this time, the classical viewpoint is heading towards a critical mass understanding. At least, I hope so. We're about at that 50 year mark, aren't we?
What I believe is that there are many knowledgable teachers out there that could benefit from validation; I have gotten a lot from reading the PCDB and have made connections with stellar individuals. As you are someone who professes to have a deep understanding of pilates and who may, in fact, share some of my pilatical concerns (I don't mean to presume, it's just my take from reading your political statements), I'd just like to get some clarifications on the above points from you.
So, I'm wondering if it's too much to ask if you could please resist seeing yourself as under scrutiny enough to clarify for the benefit of all, specifically, with respect to the quote on my post.
I also know what it's like to be misinterpreted, being someone who decided to speak up about my view of the PMA. Even though I took some hard hits for it on Pilates Pro, I know I needed to do it; it was the right thing for me to do. My viewpoint is still misunderstood in that arena; I keep explaining as best I can as opportunities arise.
As you can see from the posts, your viewpoint is sometimes confusing to me and to others. Please do not assume that it is because we do not understand pilates. I think you have come to explain your view better and better over the years. I know that there are others that already share your view in some capacity, they just might not say it exactly the same way. 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 have read your book, and quite a bit of your writings. Definitely some gems here. Are you interested in hearing other people's viewpoints? I am, and I've stated why on my blog: http://aasicontributions.blogspot.com. I believe it's really important right now to come to a common ground.
There is paradox in everything, Michael, including many of your statements, so, I'll ask you also to not kill the messenger.
In spirit,
Carole
Posted by: Carole Amend | July 27, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Mr. Miller,
I am posting again in response to your statement:
Michael Miller quotes me:
“I think a discussion of the patriarchal view will lead us to knowing that we all owe a lot to Clara.”
Then Michael Miller responds:
“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.”
Wow, gee, thanks for the warning.
"Wrong" is a word I use sparingly, however, we absolutely can disagree! And, in case you’ve been too busy defending yourself to notice, I’ll reiterate for you that I am not in disagreement with your view of progressing clients to the mat, Mr. Miller.
It is obvious that you are unaware of the history of Clara’s impact on the teaching of pilates. No one takes anything away from Joe and his contribution to mankind (in fact, you could not be more “off the mark” in your gender-related accusations) by saying that Clara was a wonderful teacher of the method. “Insignificant,” you say? I do not see this as a gender issue at all. You, in fact, are close to making it into one, by refusing to give credit where due. Joe and Clara worked side by side and she was a great support to him. Is that also true of the ridiculous examples you give to support your argument?
You profess that all the information needed for fluorescence is in Joe’s book; that it is unnecessary for readers to have ever heard accounts from those who knew him and how his studio operated. Fine.
Discounting those accounts just to prove your point, would seem, to me, to be choosing an isolationist viewpoint. That wouldn’t be my choice.
Call Joe whatever you like. Personally, I steer clear of the word “guru.” To me, the phrase, “JHPilates was an inspiration” suffices. Each and every day, I draw inspiration from and I am grateful to Joe and many others who have worked towards enhanced presence in the body.
Respectfully,
Carole
Posted by: Carole Amend | July 29, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Dear Michael, thank you for taking time to comment on those posts (mine included) and to refute with intelligence and humor( I did laugh, not at you, but in the fact that your answers made sense and reposited the discussion to the idea of Joe Pilates.) I also want to appologize to you, pubically for my snarky and uncharastically unkind remarks about you. You did not deserve those attacks,and I was very wrong and I must say hypocritical ( I actually DO BELIEVE what you are teaching)to put you down because I have always found your website enlightening and do hold your message in high regard. I do know what it is and actually do understand the idea of spirit, but won't go into it here, as I only wanted to let you know that I am embarrased for taking part in that dialogue and continuing the element of negitivity, that you were not responsible for and it was completely undeserved.
Posted by: lee artur | August 25, 2009 at 07:23 AM
Thank you, Lee. Apology accepted.
Posted by: MM | August 26, 2009 at 11:38 AM