Natural Movement

We are often accused of participating in “natural movement”. As though there were anything else, any other kind of movement. It’s natural, all the way down.

Maybe a better way to think of natural, when speaking of movement, is not to use it to refer to some primal/ancestral type of dogma, but rather to describe the situation in which the movement is natural to the person executing it, meaning that it belongs to that person in the deep sense that it no longer requires consideration for execution, can occur without invoking Feldenkrais’ “supralymbic” system.

This suggests that the characterization of natural is not actually about the “movement” itself, as some decontextualized phenomena (as though a movement can exist apart from a mover!). Rather, we use it to describe the relationship between movement and mover (maybe analogous to the nondualist sense of a mind and a thought).