At , Yveline Cyazinski, a French psychoanalyst, philosopher (and poet), is engaged in a wonderful project of questioning Feldenkrais orthodoxy about the word (and analytic orthodoxy about the body). I often bemoan the Feldenkrais community’s opposition to an “analytic” approach because I believe thought and conceptualization have a role in learning and in the method–Yveline, if I understand it, is questioning the community’s opposition to an “analytic” approach in the sense that we deny that psychological, and linguistically-mediated, dynamics such as transference and countertransference play a role in the method–especially in Functional Integration.
In her first post on her blog, she writes:
Avec mes racines analytiques, et mon expérience en cours d’élève dans le champ de recherche empirique de l’éducation somatique de Feldenkrais, je voudrais montrer que l’opposition systématique entre une théorie analytique “dogmatique” excluant le corps, et une philosophie du corps excluant le langage, est une façon de résister à ce concept de “chair” défini par Merleau- Ponti….
Or, in my very poor translation: With my [psycho-]analytic roots, and my experience as a student in this form of empirical investigation that is Feldenkrais’s somatic education, I would like to demonstrate that the systematic opposition between a dogmatic analytic theory that excludes the body, and a philosophy of the body that excludes language, constitutes a way of resisting the concept of “flesh” defined by Merleau-Ponty…
My French is terribly rusty, so I may have misunderstood anything and everything, but I am giving it a try!
First, I would like to thank Lynette, but also, I would like to say to Feldenkrais pratician: my work is only reflexion of a pupil, about live experience, and my thought is movement never closed. I just finish to read: “l’évidence en question”, the last part: l’évidence et l’insaisissable”. and it’ here I try to poursuit the question of Mosche.
We cannot work alone without listening the other, another point of view.