Rolf Audio Tape Transcript

Audio Files and Transcripts From Classes with Dr. Rolf

Ida Rolf Audio Tape Transcript
Rolf B6 Side 2A

AUDIO FILE

Tape B6 Side 2A MP3 File (aprox. 11MB)

Go To directory to Download

TRANSCRIPT

Last 3 hours of the series, especially 8^th hour

Fascial Planes

How language affects body tissue

What is Strength?

(0:00)…A whole bunch of his friends were in that class. And he came down to visit this class, and he was a pretty important man in the osteopathic group, and so forth. And so I was being real sweet to him… And I guess it was one of the first classes. A guy got up as a model, and I had him standing in front of the class. And I said, “Now doctor…”, what was his name? He was a great big – He was a Stan Keller man in every sense of the word, except he really had a lot of background – but he was a huge guy, and he was fairly sure of himself, very egotistical.

(00:55) And I said, “Now doctor how would you diagnose this man?” And he went over and from his head to his foot, and he picked this apart, and he picked that apart, and he picked the other thing apart, and he picked 17 other things apart, and that dish around his thorax which you call a so and so dish, and so forth and so forth. And when he got all through I said, “Well now, thank you doctor, but I’ll tell you the honest truth, if I thought that guy had all that wrong with him, I would charge him at least $50 dollars. Now let’s fix him up. Of course I did the same thing I did on what’s his name yesterday. And all this stuff just straightened itself up. And everybody just roared. And I said, “No, no; the bill is only $25.”

(1:45) But this is the point of it, if you really know all those things. When Dick first came back from school, he knew too darn much about what was wrong with these people. And I said, “Dick you mustn’t see all that. It’s fine that you see it, but you mustn’t see it. You’ve got to take that damn simple-minded recipe and follow it, and then you’ll be a processor.” And it’s true. So go and find out what’s wrong with these synapses, but don’t take it seriously. ‘Cause remember, if you take it too seriously you’re going to have to raise your feet to the point where they are not going to be able to back down. Anyway let’s get back and look at that simple-minded recipe again.

(2:46) I think what we saw here yesterday afternoon, for instance, was important to you people to evaluate. Because, you see, it wasn’t an accident that had hit some structure directly and knocked it askew, and it wasn’t repaired by going anywhere near the structure that was not askew. It was a question, which Annie completely missed, of looking to see where the major strain was, not the strain of the symptom. Where was the major strain? And the major strain was down in that spine where the major strain of that fellow has been since he was a 10 year old, or what have you. And there is where you had to go in, and start taking out the strain which he had put in by his very ill-advised forcings of yoga exercising, yoga breathing. I have a suspicion that some of it came in through yoga exercise as well, which he probably wasn’t talking about.

(4:08) And so you look to the major strain. When something comes in this way, and you know you really don’t know all about. The guy is telling you the minimum that he thinks he can get away with. And you may be very sure that he’s hiding, or trying to hide at least, the things which he knows you told him not to do, or he knows by implication you told him not to do. He’s not telling you all this. Would you be if the situation were reversed? So you know all this to begin with.

(4:43) So, in that, after all, a structure is a whole, is a structure is a whole, and we’ve agreed that this man is a something, which is spanned between that plexus at the base of the spine and the plexus at the top of the spine. The next thing you’re going to have to do is look at the spine and see where that spanning is interfered with. And with this man, that spanning was just like a wire that had taken and bent before. Well, his spine had been taken and bent before. So obviously the thing to do is repeat what you did before; get it out.

(5:25) But you see that man, THAT man, had had so much processing, that he had all this stuff built in underlying it, and it was very easy to get to. This is why it would have been a grand waste of time to have started on a 1^st hour and moved along. This was all inbuilt in him, because this guy has had certainly 30 hours of work, if not more. He had 10 hours from Jack before he ever came into a class of ours, and then he had 10 hours in that class, and probably had 10 hours in another class; so that all of that was right in there, and you could call up, and you could go into, the organized material and simply ease it off.

(6:11) But sometimes, you see, it pays very much for you to – (uh, now I’m doubling back on my tracks) – to understand nervous systems, and what they do. What was this guy complaining about in his letter to me, which was quite pathetic in order for me to get him down here. He was having trouble with his kidneys, and he was reporting frequency of urination as a kidney problem, which it might or might not have been. And he couldn’t digest anything, and he wasn’t interested in his food and so forth. But you see, he wasn’t involved enough to realize that what he was talking about was probably, simply, a distortion of that autonomic nervous system as it lay in front of this twisted spine. And that it wasn’t that he was having a general breakdown, at all; he was having interference with that autonomic nervous system. Now if he had been able to put his problem into objective words as this, he would have saved himself a lot of sweat. But on the other hand maybe he wouldn’t have written me his pathetic letter, and maybe I wouldn’t have invited him down here, and told him to come down and I’d fix him up. So, pay your body [ ].

(7:31) But, I do tell you, don’t think you’re going to be a better processor by knowing too much neurology, particularly neurology. How on earth are we going to ever get ourselves to the place where we are able to rewrite the books so that emphasis is where we see it, I don’t know. But this is what’s going to have to be done.

Last 3 hours of the series, especially 8^th hour

(8:08) Now, anyway, we’re doing 8^th hours today, lots of 8th hours. Yesterday for some reason or another, everybody was worked on in terms of the lower half of the body. And when I looked at those people I didn’t think that this was what was indicated. I felt that what was indicated for Fritz yesterday definitely wasn’t indicated for Phil. But, you see, we got so balled up with too many people in here at the same time, that we just were plowing through. I don’t think that either Fritz or Phil is going to die of it. But what I’m hoping will come up today will be some of these people where we don’t – how many 8^th hours do we really have today?

(9:18 student) Six, counting Bob. No, 4. George and Bob, Dale and GeeGee…

(9:45) So that no matter how we slice it, we’re not going to get – GeeGee’s 2 behind too, isn’t she?

(9:53) No. She’s getting an 8^th.

(9:58) GeeGee has never been quite as clear a picture as some of the other people. I think because of her slight, uh; it’s all in there but it isn’t underscored with red and green ink, you know, the way it is on some of these people. Anyway I hope that out of those 4, we get some very clear picture of the need for upper half work rather than lower half work.

(10:30) Now you see, what you are developing, what you are developing is something which in earlier classes I haven’t really pointed out as early as this, and yet in the pattern in which we have verbally and logically developed it, it is interesting at this point to look at this. What you have developed you see, is a nervous system spanning. All right. We just were talking about that: from the coccyx to the big ganglion of the brain. But a man doesn’t do his living through his nervous system. He does a lot of it through his motor system. So that you have this core structure, but his motor system is wrapped around it, in terms of 2/3rds: This is his ‘doing’ system. And before you have that man where you want that man, you have to establish a balance between that ‘being’ system and that ‘doing’ system.

(12:09) And it is a matter of everlasting interest to me to see how, at the different periods in the world’s history, the history of cultural thinking, you see, the same ideas coming up, expressed somewhat differently in terms of the cultural pictures of the time. But they never get much beyond it, and they never get much below it. And for 3,000 years people, or many – or perhaps 10,000 for all I know – people have been talking about the difference between ‘being’ and ‘doing’ and in their religious and philosophical systems they’ve been talking about it, and some of them have been trying to develop it. Now for the most part what they’ve been trying to develop has been the ‘being’ system. Well this meditation, and so forth, has been the development of the ‘being’ system. They have seemingly felt their lack in that ‘being’ system rather than in the ‘doing’ system. On the other hand, you come along to this 20^th century, and undoubtedly this is also true in the middle ages, where the man who was the greatest knight was not the guy that could think but the guy that could do; the guy who was more expert in terms of his motor system. And so, they were trying at that point to develop a ‘being’ system through the glamoring that they put around the ‘being’ system and the sentiment and so forth and so forth, and trying to detract from the motor system.

(14:06) Now we get up to the 20^th century, and we go along and look on the bookstand and find the “Body Beautiful”, and there’s very little ‘being’ in it. It’s a ‘doing’ system. And you see they have managed to over stress that ‘doing’, until they get an absolutely immobilized organization. And those guys that you see on that “Body Beautiful” are good for very little work. Put them out to mow the lawn for an hour and they can’t work for a week. And if any of you have happened to be anywhere around where prize fighters were training, you see the same sort of thing. So at 7 o’clock they’re out on the road, and they run just so and so many feet, and then they come home, and then they rest, and they lie down on their back, and somebody serves them some breakfast and so forth. And then at 11 o’clock they take on their sparring partner, and they do it for just that long, and they rest. And they can’t do a day’s work.

(15:19) It’s very important that you recognize that these various systems in a body have to be developed in order to get efficient, happy living. Happy in terms of body living. And so this is what you have been developing. And now you see, you are going to look at this in terms of relating those motor systems. No longer are you really basically looking at it in terms of gravitational structure, per say. You’re looking at it in terms of a ‘doing’ system in terms of gravitational structure. You’re looking at it in terms of the 2 girdles, which are the ‘doing’ systems of that body, and relating them.

Fascial Planes

(16:30) And one after the other of you, yesterday, fell kind of flat on your face, because you see you were still back trying to take out the little knots and things that kept the body from standing straight, and this isn’t the job anymore. The job now is to relate the working system to the working system. And this relates through facial planes – big fascial planes.

(17:12) And your 8^th and your 9^th and your 10^th hours will be dealing basically with the fascial planes, and how to relate them. And you don’t relate the fascial plane by putting your little finger in, your little index finger, and pushing. You’ve got to deal with the fascial plane with a wide-spread spread, and a wide-spread stretch. And it’s a different feeling; it’s a different feeling objectively, but it’s a different feeling subjectively. To you, the feeling under your hand is different. And you’ve got to feel and think of yourself as relating big structures to big structures.

(18:17) Now, in order to do this, your big structures have to be free, relatively free. For example, you are not going to be able to relate a shoulder girdle to a spine if the individual elements that determine the position of the shoulder girdle, one or two of them, are out of place; the teres, the subscapularis, the levator scapulae. You see, you can’t relate past that. But you’ve got to do more than free the teres or free the levator, or free this, that, and the other thing. Having freed them you’ve got to relate them, and this is the job of the 8^th hour.

(12:21) Now, go down to the other end of the line. What is the big thing that is relating the legs?

…

(20:42) Anyway, you’ve got this problem of relating the motor function of the lower girdle in there, or at least that’s what we were trying to deal with yesterday. Now just see the different way you got to look at the thing before you’re going to do that. You’re going to have the feeling of the leg being the leg as a whole.

(21:09) Now, what creates a leg as a whole and what interferes with the leg as a whole? And they’re really the same structures you’ve been dealing with, only it’s that cockeyed subtlety of a difference in the way of looking at it, giving rise to a difference in the result that you’re getting from it.

(21:37) Anybody like to express his confusion at this point in the question? It might help to lead the discussion further. Or aren’t you confused?

(22:00 student) I’m confused by what you mean by large fascial planes as apposed to…

(22:06) Small fascial planes? Small fascial planes will be, really, the wrappings of the individual muscles. But those large fascial planes – look for instance at what you’ve got in here, and look for instance at what you’ve got where the leg joins the – and see the extent in which the fascia connects with the fascia? So that here you’re really dealing with a structure which, in your own mind, is a fascial structure rather than a muscular structure. This is [carried] it all up.

(22:42 student) You’re dealing with groups of muscles?

(22:45) Yes you’re dealing with groups of muscles. But if you could just take the muscle out of the picture at this point, seeing the fascia as a single structure – was in that spot, [Halz], that that was that good, uh, fascia of the shoulders picture?…(yeah) See what I’m talking about at this point?

(23:10 student) Yesterday when we were just about through with Don, he looked real good from the waist down, but the waist, the whole bottom didn’t fit with the top half, and you did a few things around his back and it fit all of a sudden.

(23:26) You see, we have one very great weakness in this group. We are used to being able to burglarize, and it is this, and it is that; and it just ain’t that. And life ain’t that. Life ain’t an “it is” thing. Life is this relationship. And we’re not used to using our words in a way that conveys the idea of relationship to the other guy. And so we are fighting to do something which hasn’t been done before, and it takes us a while to do it. And, shh, I don’t know what I did with Don yesterday.

…

How language affects body tissue

(24:22) There are a lot of languages of relationship in the world, that is, several of them. And it makes a very great difference, and it makes a very great difference as to the actual tension in the individual who’s speaking the language. If you say “The cat runs inside of you”, something tightens and runs. You’re not just sitting as you are before. If you say “The running cat”, nothing bothers to tighten. And there are many, many languages which do not say “The cat runs” – oriental languages – but which picture the cat, the running cat. Makes a big difference inside the individual who is talking about it.

(25:00 student) There was a study, oh about10 years ago, which studied the 5 relating types of languages, [ ] being one of them, and in none of the people who speak those languages are there either juvenile delinquency or obese people.

(25:18) Well, that seems a pretty wide deduction to me.

(25:37) But you see it’s important that you know that this is so, I don’t know that you can do a darn thing about it. The actual number of papers, the actual amount of information that’s known about it isn’t that great as far as I know. I think some of it – what was the name of that man that was branched off from general semantics; he was a man who was, if I remember rightly, a railroad dispatcher. What was his name?

(26:08 student) Yes. Whorf…

(26:17) Whorf. Right. And I don’t know why, but nobody seemed to pick up the ball and take it much further. And Whorf had given it its original kick and carried it just that far, and then it didn’t go further.

(26:30 student) A man by the name of Morris, tried to go from Whorf’s thesis and make it more specific with the English language, but really that bogged up. He wrote a couple of books about it but that’s very clear.

(26:41 student) I think that was the thing; that Whorf scared everybody so much, that they couldn’t handle it, and everyone wanted to find specific cases, and nobody bothered to carry his thinking on.

(26:50) Well, the problem was there aren’t that many people alive in the world that know the grammatical formulations of these various languages, let alone the comparative.

(27:08 student) Benjamin William Whorf….

(27:14) And I don’t even remember where that was published. Do you?

(27:16) He had 2 books out. I was trying to think that – one of them has to do with structure of language, and they’re both available in paperback.

(27:30) Are they? It seems to me I must have read that originally in some of the general semantic complications.

(27:35 student) Well, Etc. printed a number of excerpts from his books, and also a lot of comments about it from other people.

(27:47) Well at any rate, have a look at it if you’re interested, but realize that it’s a very simple thing to look at a body as being a summation of individual parts, but if you really look at the fact that if you say, “The cat runs.” very deeply in your body, and you tighten up, and you change the relation of those parts in your body, you get a different recognition of what is a body. And it’s going to take you a lot of sitting in a corner and meditating before you find out where this stops. A question that you’re going to find out.

(28:34) But in terms of your question, you see, if you look at a structure like that, and you’re going to change a structure like that, you’re never going to get into individual muscle stuff.

(28:50) Now, over and over again you people come here, and you do a job and you say, “Is this ok?” and I say, “No, it doesn’t pass.” And I go over and with a punch here and a punch there, it changes. But that punch here and that punch there is always a question of going to a greater depth. And you people are dealing, you’re still dealing, not with this kind of a fascial structure; you’re still playing in the muscular pattern that is around the real core of the body.

(29:47) Now, I don’t know where this “Cat runs” thing goes to in you. I mean, I don’t really know the depth. When I feel for what happens in myself when I say “The cat runs.” I feel myself tightening through the abdomen. I don’t know how, in terms of this picture that I am trying to draw, what is the depth to which this consistent use of language causes change. And after you realize all this, then you begin to realize what some of these religious people have been driving at when they talk about the importance of the individual words and how you use them; the importance of blasphemy, the importance of taking the name of the lord in vane, and this sort of thing. The importance of anger, and expressing yourself in anger, versus the suppression of anger and the expression of it as a more or less devoid material, that has been devoid of it’s emotional impact. There’s a great deal in there. I don’t know what it is. I don’t feel that it’s my business to try to deal with it, but I do feel it’s your business to try to recognize that this is there.

(31:19) Now, the people that come to you are always asking you, “Well Doc, what’s this from? Why is this? Why do I have this?” And you can’t tell them this. They can’t understand, even if you spell it out ABC for them. They’re not living in this 4^th area, and you can’t talk to them. You’ll have to have something that you’re telling them in terms of the secondary or the early third area, and then they go away and they’re satisfied that they know what’s going on. But they don’t know, because nowadays, living (somehow) is in that 4^th area, whether they see it or not.

(32:07) It would be interesting to speculate, and never to find out, whether, in the days of primitive life on the earth there was a difference in livingness that said we live in an area where it is to me, and therefore it is, and this is the reality. Have fun.

(32:28) But realize that you cannot, you cannot, you cannot, put your finger on something and say this is it. This isn’t it. This may be a part of the picture of it, but it’s as close as you can get to it. And this statement that I’ve just made is of importance to you here, because it is in the 8^th hour, and the 9th hour, and the 10th hour that you are now dealing with relationships.

(33:12) And what I expect to be seen today, as you get into your models practice, I expect to be literally seeing your minds working in terms of “How do I relate this to this?” instead of “What causes this?” And it isn’t going to be that easy a day. I mean that simple minded today.

(33:48 student) What would you think of doing the 8^th hour with your eyes closed; blindfolded?

(33:52) It wouldn’t be hard.

(33:57 student) But it is, to a very large extent, a matter of feeling.

(34:02) Your eyes are an organ of feeling. And so that your eyes are so lucky, they do that feeling at a distance.

(34:11 student) But I see you’re hands go to the fascial space, and go along the fascial spaces.

(34:21) And?

(34:22 student) Well that’s just the way you do it. You go right to the fascial space, and you go, you feel your way along the fascial space.

(34:28) Sure. So?

(34:30 student) Rather than identifying, say, this is this and this is this and this is this. It tells you where you’re going.

(34:36) Neither I, nor anybody, that is really good, at anything, does a “This is this stuff.”

(34:42 student) Yeah. I agree.

(34:46) As they get paid for teaching other people, they look around and try to find some words, which rationalizes what they do. Now you’re a big boy, and you know this is so, but you got me to tell that to the children over in the hall and stop having our salaries paid.

(35:10) But this is really so. There is such a tremendous split in what’s going on here between what we’re doing and what we’re saying.

What is Strength?

(35:20 student) You talked about strength today.

(35:22) Oh yeah, right. Anybody want to answer the question, “What is strength?” I made a mistake yesterday. And I should have asked you to have tested his grip after I did what I did. I made a mistake. I apologize. Does anybody want to answer that question, “What is strength?”

(35:58 student) Well, I’ve learned that strength is a matter of form, and then it’s a matter of balance.

(36:07) Go on.

(36:10 student) That is to say, that strength is not a matter of, as popular thought, of mass of muscles, (of size of muscles), rather what it is it’s the correct performance of the muscle groups; one muscle group following another muscle group. And also, it’s a matter of balance. That is, when a motion is done – force is exerted in one direction, there should be a force in the opposite direction.

(36:41) It’s a matter of balance. That’s right.

(36:44) For instance, let me give you an example. For instance in karate, the strength of the kick depends on the balance of the supporting leg, not so much the leg that does the kicking.

(36:56) You know, there’d be a whole area that would be very interesting when you looked into karate, in terms of our way of organizing, forming, a body. Because karate per say, and you know per say don’t give the type of bodies that we create.

(37:16 student) That’s right.

(37:19) You not only can see it, you’ve felt your own body change in the last 2 weeks, and I don’t know how you feel about the change that you’ve gotten, whether it pleases you more or it pleases you less. It does please you more?

(37:29 student) There’s no doubt about it.

(37:31) Well, this is a very interesting statement. And you see, Feldenkrais had the same thing to say. What he wanted was not that roundness of Judo, but the ovoid-ness of Rolf.

(37:44 student) What about aikido?

(37:47) I don’t know as much about that, but all of those oriental forms create roundness, as far as I know.

(37:54 student) I don’t think aikido does as much.

(37:55 student) It does.

(37:56) Well I don’t really know. You people talk about it that know something about it. All I know is, that you take Bob’s body, about the second or third hour that we work here, and it was a typical oriental body; a typical Japanese body in terms of the way the impact, stimulation flowed through; it was an oriental body. Now some of you that are interested in different aspects of body, this would be a very interesting line to follow. Maybe you want to follow it. What constitutes that oriental flow versus the kind of flow that we have here?

(38:42) You see, I think, but this is pure speculation on my part; I think that if there is a plan which is much greater than what we can observe, in terms of our little lives, and our little living; if there is a plan for these various games to be played out; one culture plays out it’s kind of game, and one culture plays out it’s kind of game, then what you are seeing in this room is the unfolding of that plan for a different kind of game: a kind of game that is played with lightness. And maybe this is the Aquarian age of this culture, this light business, that plays with light balance and not massive strength. I don’t know, but it’s an interesting speculation.

(39:44 student) That’s the goal of tai chi, is the lightness of balance.

(39:47) Yeah, that’s the theory. You go look at some of them. Not the good ones. But the point is that there is a vast gap between the theory and the translation into…but you see, basically all the masters in any of these things are very close together. The performance of masters, I don’t care what field you’re a master in, you won’t be that far off from the masters in any other field. It goes in like this; people are at the head of a very small circle.

(40:28) But getting back to very mundane considerations of strength. The fellow on the other end of the telephone says, “I’ve been down with a dose of flu, and I’m as weak as a kitten. I can just manage to get to the bathroom; that’s all that I can do. And I’ve got to go to my office, because I have to sign a contract.” And he says, “What’ll I do about it?” And you say, “Well just stay where you are for a while.” From the goodness of your heart you pick up, and you go over and see the guy. And he looks like the wrath of god was on him; his face doesn’t look the same, his arms don’t look the same, nothing looks the same, and he is as he says, as weak as a kitten. I don’t know how weak a kitten is, some of them are pretty sturdy looking to me, but there he is.

(41:27) Now, look what’s happened. His form has been destroyed through this invasion of a virus, or what have you. And I don’t think any of you have ever really sat down and thought about this. His form has been destroyed. His face is swollen; his tissues are holding water. Maybe his tissues are holding water locally rather than generally, or maybe the other way around. The relationship of part to part has been violated. And the guy says I’m sick, and he is sick. But this is sickness, among other things. If you go in there and you look at the chemistry of it, the chemical balance has been destroyed. And the guy in the laboratory doesn’t need to see this fellow lying here with his form destroyed. If you just bring him a little bit of blood, he’ll say, “This is a sick man you’ve got there”. So then, his chemical form has been destroyed. But always it is a destruction of form.

(42:44) Now, you take your hands, and with your hands you restore the form and now you have a brand new problem on hand. Now you can’t keep the guy down; he’s got to go to his office and raise hell generally. And you can’t keep the guy down, but you know that he isn’t that fixed and sturdy yet, and that unless you keep him down, and give him time for that new thing to gel again, you’ve got some more trouble. But he’s no longer weak as a kitten. Then he gives you a story about he’s so weak, and you say, “What have you been eating?” “Well I’ve been so weak you know, I thought I better have a beef steak, because that would give me strength.

(43:49) So you go around, and with your hands you restore the form, and then he’s able to get up and jump around. He pulls on his clothes and he grabs a taxi and he goes down to the office. And you say, “But you didn’t have any beef steak. How did you happen to get so strong all at once?” And then you’ve got the guy completely confused, and he better get down to the office in an area where he’s not confused. But it is you people who see this.

(44:08) The extent to which you can restore the form, you restore the ability of a guy to function.

(44:20) Now, of course, there comes a time in the destruction of any given form that is known as John Smith or Mary Jones, when the destruction of the form goes to the point beyond which, the point of no return. But until you get to that point, the restoration of the form gives you life again. And once again you can look at it in terms of, you add energy to a mass where the entropy has gone high, and the entropy that this level decreases, and the order and the ability and the capability of the guy is restored. See it’s the same story that you talk about in mathematics, about the increase in entropy if you just let a system alone.

(25:24 student) If we have time, I would like to have Peter give us a few minutes dissertation on the concept of entropy. Could you do that Peter? It’s a concept that I don’t have a good solid grip on. I’d like to hear it again.

(45:41) Well, if he’s going to give a good dissertation, get it down and publish it.

(45:44 student) Just something, that it might be better to think about it a little bit before I say something.

(45:54) Alright, think about it between now and Monday morning. And think of it in terms of something that we can use to talk about, that we can publish so other people, others of our group, don’t get so scared by this word ‘entropy’. And if you’re really going to do a good job, try to bridge between this concept of entropy, and it involves thermodynamics – which they’ve all heard about and the moment you mention it they all withdraw because they’re scared to death. Try and make them more familiar, so we don’t get this withdrawal.

(46:41) I told you probably that one of the criticisms, and I must get that paper from Al, one of the criticisms that was sent back from the editorial department to whom I submitted this discussion of stress, was that they wanted more of a discussion of this entropy. And you see if you think about this between now and Monday, maybe we can get three sentences that will make them happier.

(47:10 student) That was where I got hung up on that paper that I was working on too, was the concept of entropy.

(47:16) Well you see, this is what I mean when I say, the day is very near when we can not possibly any longer try to teach this in terms of 6 weeks, 24 days of sessions. When we’ve got to realize that what we are doing here works out into many, many, many departments into every direction, that we are just simply a key-core situation here, and we are going to have to expand to the point where we have organization of ideas.

(47:53 student) If I were to set up a training program for Rolf practitioners, I would demand a year of dedication to start with.

(48:01) This has got to be, but believe me you wouldn’t be sitting in this room right now if I had demanded.

(48:09 student) You noticed I started my sentence with “If”.

(48:11) Well, I figured that out 10 years ago. But I’m a realist if ever there was one, and I know that where you’re going to go on a walk you’ve got to start putting your foot one foot ahead of the other from there, where you’re standing.

(48:27 student) Which foot?

(48:32) Do it once.

(48:39) I’m just finishing several years of training in classical you know, several years to learn it, of study. I’m very much opposed to the idea of institutionalizing something to the point where you destroy the creative influence.

(48: 49) Well, all of this is fine theory, we all would bow down to it and we all know that except as you create form, you get conveyed a thing. You’ve got to have form. As long as you’re living on the face of the earth you’ve got to have form. Now how rigid that form is, there’s a certain amount of freedom in the degree of rigidity, but form you have to have. That’s the law of the prophetess, as far as they’ve been revealed to me.

Do we have any coffee? No.

…

(50:14) OK, now let’s just for fun, do a little different kind of reviewing than what we’ve been doing. Let’s in our mind’s eye, go back to the first hour.

[End]