The most interesting modern theory of posture (imo) is that of FM Alexander, The Alexander Technique[1] (a system that has influenced other systems, such as those of Feldenkrais). The Alexander Technique is notable for avoiding the approach of standing by force of will and rather standing naturally once one has retrained a faulty idea of one's position in space. Proper posture thus becomes "effortless" rather than being a matter of force, effort or will (Alexander's writings on how modern society miscalibrates basic human balance reflexes are worth a look also).
It is interesting to read the long heritage of the idea of standing by will - especially the similarities of the idea of Alexander and Hegel passage quoted in the article.
I'm really interested in Alexander but haven't found great resources about it online. Can you link to anything publicly available that you found interesting? Where does he talk about modern society miscalibrating human balance?
I can't remember where I read it, but I recently read something along the lines of: "no posture is perfect; the body is not a static entity, we are constantly moving and adjusting to our environment". Moving a lot and in different ways seems like it's better than sitting/standing still in the same position all day long.
Everyone I know with good posture are physically fit, none of whom have “retrained a faulty idea of one’s position in space”. The sense we have that someone is fit generally comes from their posture.
Does this idea-retraining work as well as the gym? Do you know examples of unfit people with great posture through idea-retraining?
Of course we all know unfit people who are always straining to “sit up straight” and so forth, which always seems unnatural. Perhaps these people are the target market for this idea-retraining?
Over stretched and weak back muscles plus over tense chest muscle contribute greatly to poor posture. How does that figure into the idea of retraining positional perception?
This concept is... exceedingly philosophically problematic, and one of those things that might be cute on paper if you don't think about it too much, but rather horrific if you do.
We should keep in mind the positions many of these philosophers were in. They often come from aristocracy classes and look down on commoners. They had access to better resources and were not ailed with problems, and therefore had no trouble defining people who are weaker, sicker, lower, smaller, uglier, etc., as "lesser". It's not a coincidence that many philosophers were not even able to register women as people. The downtrodden person is easy to look down upon as they have been damaged.
No room for complexity or messiness that's inherent in the lives of most people. These philosophers liked living by ideals, but human life is not ideal, and creating these ideals simply gates away most humans. If anything, the concept is non-human, but in its nature, Luciferous, as it separates off a "worthy" elite and throws away the rest. Most normal people do not survive the judgment of a philosopher.
A hunching person is human. A person with damaged limbs is a human. An older person who cannot stand upright is human. If you assign value to posture, then you have forgotten these people and flagged them as unworthy, and that makes you not human more than anything discussed in this article. It is that thought which is immoral, it is that thought which makes the slave, and not at all the posture of the slave. The excuse that comes after, not the origin of the evil.
[+] [-] joe_the_user|8 years ago|reply
It is interesting to read the long heritage of the idea of standing by will - especially the similarities of the idea of Alexander and Hegel passage quoted in the article.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Technique
[+] [-] handsomechad|8 years ago|reply
Also, how does it compare to Feldenkrais?
[+] [-] Tharkun|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulsutter|8 years ago|reply
Does this idea-retraining work as well as the gym? Do you know examples of unfit people with great posture through idea-retraining?
Of course we all know unfit people who are always straining to “sit up straight” and so forth, which always seems unnatural. Perhaps these people are the target market for this idea-retraining?
[+] [-] DenisM|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fjsolwmv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djtriptych|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] projektir|8 years ago|reply
We should keep in mind the positions many of these philosophers were in. They often come from aristocracy classes and look down on commoners. They had access to better resources and were not ailed with problems, and therefore had no trouble defining people who are weaker, sicker, lower, smaller, uglier, etc., as "lesser". It's not a coincidence that many philosophers were not even able to register women as people. The downtrodden person is easy to look down upon as they have been damaged.
No room for complexity or messiness that's inherent in the lives of most people. These philosophers liked living by ideals, but human life is not ideal, and creating these ideals simply gates away most humans. If anything, the concept is non-human, but in its nature, Luciferous, as it separates off a "worthy" elite and throws away the rest. Most normal people do not survive the judgment of a philosopher.
A hunching person is human. A person with damaged limbs is a human. An older person who cannot stand upright is human. If you assign value to posture, then you have forgotten these people and flagged them as unworthy, and that makes you not human more than anything discussed in this article. It is that thought which is immoral, it is that thought which makes the slave, and not at all the posture of the slave. The excuse that comes after, not the origin of the evil.
[+] [-] Valmar|8 years ago|reply