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

Comments

[Carole Amend]

wow...
It's obvious you cannot hear my intention or viewpoint.
I am up early because I am driving down to Big Bear...I only scanned this.
But I didn't see the following quote by me:
7/26/09
"I would say, and others here have said, get his book. Read it. He is a longtime teacher and the info is, I believe, one of the first truly personalized views (just my characterization of it), based in physics and more, on the method and worth a read, or at least to have on your shelf for reference."
I meant it, not that I think you or anyone else would care at all what I think.
People I have spoken with, who have read your book, resonate with what you believe Michael (I'm sure not telling you anything you don't already believe there :).
The conversation is there whether you participate or not.

[Carole Amend]

So, I read it through.
Paradox is playing a role here; my experience is that I am often misunderstood when that is not recognized.
And, it seems you have made up your mind, Michael; so be it.
But that doesn't make you right.

I really don't care one way or the other, I simply find it interesting what you are willing to assume and, therefore, reveal.

[MM]

I care. I care a lot.

I believe you care a lot, too.

What makes me right--is reality.

[Lynda Lippin]

Of course Michael. Thank you for showing me the light. I don't take Pilates seriously, I make light of the mat, and I am closed minded and irrational because I question your point of view. Only your "shoulds" are the right shoulds. What was I thinking after 2 decades of teaching Pilates? Right, I shouldn't think.

[lee artur]

Dear Michael, I am adding this as an afterthought to my appology as it was brought to my attention it was posted on the site under the "Direction of Pilates". I meant it to be posted under slings and arrows as I am not appologizing for taking part in the forum per se but for taking it on a path of sarcasm and base pot shots at you that were not in keeping with the intention of Carole, who I know and she is not like that at all.

As Professionals in the same field of work, we should be able to have intelligent debate with our contempories and not sink to the level of personal putdowns when someon is not in agreement with how we present our ideas or what we think.

[MM]

Thank you, Lee. Apology accepted.

[MM]

Shoulds are disguised wants. Anytime you hear the word "should" replace it with the word "want" and ask yourself "who wants"? I state no shoulds, only wants. I want everyone to see what I see. Of course, not everyone will.

Many studied astronomy for much longer that 2 decades before Copernicus. Many more studied physics for more that 2 decades before Einstein. Millions studied martial arts for thousands of years before Bruce Lee.

Just because I want you to see my point doesn't mean you are willing, or will.

[Carole Amend]

Dear Michael,
I am glad that you responded to the forum and were able to express your feelings/beliefs, albeit indirectly.
If you do not believe what I have stated my intentions to be, please contact me directly. Also, if you feel that you have been wronged in any way, please ask for a retraction.

I do not agree with your assessment that it was all "slings and arrows" or that such was the intent in any way. I do not believe in assigning "right" and "wrong" as labels. I believe in continuums. I also believe that people are entitled to their opinions.

Your responses here on your own blog are monologues that do not feel in any way like invitations to conversation.

So, I offer to you the opportunity to email me directly at any time at info@aim-academy.org for an actual statement/response conversation with me in regards to me, my intentions, or the the Amend Integrative Model.

Sincerely,
Carole

[MM]

(My comments are in parenthesis.)

Dear Michael,
I am glad that you responded to the forum and were able to express your feelings/beliefs, albeit indirectly. (I don’t know how I could have responded more directly than I already have.)

If you do not believe what I have stated my intentions to be, please contact me directly. (If I didn’t believe your stated intentions why would I bother to contact you?) Also, if you feel that you have been wronged in any way, please ask for a retraction. (Retractions, let alone asking for one, are feeble attempts to undo what cannot be undone.)

I do not agree with your assessment that it was all "slings and arrows" or that such was the intent in any way. (I didn’t say it was all slings and arrows, or that there was intent for it to be that.) I do not believe in assigning "right" and "wrong" as labels. (I believe there is right and wrong by the way they make you feel no matter how you try to label them.) I believe in continuums. I also believe that people are entitled to their opinions. (Whether entitled or not, they have them.)

Your responses here on your own blog are monologues that do not feel in any way like invitations to conversation. (My responses are monologues meant to invite understanding my point of view.)

So, I offer to you the opportunity to email me directly at any time at info@aim-academy.org for an actual statement/response conversation with me in regards to me, my intentions, or the the Amend Integrative Model. (Your offer is magnanimous but unneeded. I feel no need to converse about you, your intentions, or the Amend Integrative Model.)
Sincerely,
Carole
(Best wishes,
Michael)