okay, so here's a further realization i've been coming to, based upon structuralist analyses of bodies. the last link in the chain complains the most. if a patient comes in for, say, pain radiating down the arm (anything from carpal tunnel to tennis elbow), and local work hasn't resolved it, and neither has work on the scalenes (which tend to produce much arm pain; "thoracic outlet syndrome"), try checking things out on the OPPOSITE side of the body. of course, things are much more complex than this, but: i've noticed that on many patients, although the pain/numbness symptoms run on one side of the body, the actual culprit tends to be on the opposite side. for example, the scalenes on the left side are really short and tight, BUT the symptoms all exhibit on the right side. this actually makes sense: the left scalenes are short (maybe asymptomatic), but they PULL the head to the left, thus putting constant strain on the right scalenes. if the LEFT scalenes are addressed (lengthened), then presumably the already long right scalenes should be given a chance to relax, thus reducing symptoms.
this is yet another reason why "chasing pain" in terms of working local or ipsilateral doesn't necessarily work. it is important to "look" and "feel" the problem to get a sense of the lay of the land that could be causing the problem. unfortunately, this global perspective tends to be much more involved: the pain in the neck could actually be caused by structural aberrations in the torso or even in the feet...
we can extend this "perspective" to many other sorts of problems, from the psychological to the political. we look at problems, for the most part, from a superficial perspective (localized), and thus our "solutions" to them tend to be very superficial (bandaids). i think it's important to realize that "the last link complains the most" but is not necessarily the heart of the problem. it's important to follow the chain backwards, to see what PULLS the last link... this is ultimately a more efficient way to work problems out. conventional (shallow) understanding won't "see" the rationale of such efforts ("hey, that's not where the problem is... you're going the wrong way"), but then again, much of the time it is conventional understanding (lack of awareness) that got us into the problem in the first place...
which brings me to certain issues. proper body mechanics (which i myself never exhibit) are a necessary part of therapy. i do think taiqi is a great way to improve structural integrity, but it is a cultural thing, and not necessarily ideal for all individuals in all activities. but it is a start, at least emphasizing groundedness and an individual's relationship to gravity... i am looking into feldenkrais, some alexander technique...
on an unrelated note, kendall turned me onto lowen (sp?)'s bioenergetic technique, a kind of bridge between "mind" and "body" and also "energy" and "structure." my understanding of such things is very superficial, but i kind of heard about reichian psycho-energetics, and a lot of it was kinda "sexual", in the sense of seeing orgasm as a kind of necessary catharsis or "release valve" for tensions in the body... sure, i can see that... but to extend this as a therapeutic model seems, i don't know, kinda icky. in any case, i intend to explore "bioenergetics."
*an interesting note: ever notice how "energy" as spoken of in certain psychoanalytic traditions, tends to be "cathartic" and explosive (i.e. emphasis upon "release"/"liberation"), whereas "energy" spoken of in qigong and chinese culture in general tends to be much more normalized (i.e. emphasis upon a controlled and comfortable flow); also, there is more emphasis upon the interactional nature of energy... just a thought. yet another way to explore differences in east and west.
No comments:
Post a Comment