Science and What Qualifies for Attention

Science as a tool does a great job with what qualifies for its attention. The rest is garbage. Feldenkrais data fall into the garbage category in so many ways: it's a systems issue, so it can't be diced into convenient science packets; there's no money in it…. And worst, worst, worst of all, it isn't just that the data are subjective, but that in Feldenkrais, subjectivity provides the data.

Your senses, perceptions, assessments, moods, rhythms, coordinations and even your delusions are the inputs. Your internal senses matter almost more than your external, independently verifiable senses. And as if that weren't bad enough, when I write 'subjectivity provides the data,' I am referring to the constant, recursive, meta-attention that Feldenkrais asks for. Not just 'can you feel your shoulder blade glide across your ribs?', but also 'and is it more clear now than it was before?'

Feldenkrais is not proven wrong – that’s the whole point. Subjectivity doesn’t lend itself to proof or disproof. It would be possible to study it with a 21st century approach that honored complexity, but that requires some deep cultural change in the medical community (and a lot of money).

Right or wrong, Feldenkrais, because it is the ultimate in subjectivity, even right up into meta-subjectivity, just isn't a comfortable fit for 17th century science.