I’ve heard some conversations recently in which people ask, “Is Bones For Life® Feldenkrais®?” or simply state, “Bones for Life IS NOT Feldenkrais!!” Neither statement makes any sense.
Here’s an idea. How about asking questions about the “new” methodologies in a way that is consistent with Feldenkrais learning principles? How about asking what will help people to develop organically in the way that is most satisfying for them. So that they can develop in accordance with their own needs, their own desires, their own abilities and at their own speed.
The labels are irrelevant, the persons needs and desires are not. Better questions to ask:
Would it be useful for me to learn Bones For Life?
Would Bones For Life add to what I know about myself?
What would BFL add to what I know about the Feldenkrais Method?
Would it be useful for my students or for my practice?
It seems to me that those are worthy questions to consider.
As for FGNA not accepting Bones For Life as “continuing education”? No offense to the Guild, but who cares? Personally, I’m not organizing my learning activities in accordance to the external requirements of the FGNA. No guild is going to set my learning agenda. Those of you who are worried about meeting continuing education requirements might take a moment to consider your own self-directed learning activities:
Do you regularly do self-application of ATM?
Do you work with the Alexander Yanai lessons?
Do you engage in study groups?
All of those activities count as continuing ed, keep track of them, count them as your continuing hours and go take any damn training that you want to.
cheers – Ryan
By the way – I have not taken a Bones For Life training. I am not endorsing Bones For Life. I AM endorsing organic development and the desire for intelligent life on planet earth. If not you, then who? Who?!
Share this with a friend: