For reference, I list up the difference between the ‘ordinary’ AT and my method.
My method is against following ordinary AT ideas:
- If we just inhibit habitual tension(non-doing), we will be in ideal state.
- Every functions go well if we adjust “primary control” adequately (head-neck relationship or head-neck-torso relationship).
- There is no advantageous posture. (There is no right or wrong posture)
- Try not to rely on our sensary appreciation.
My method covers the followings (The ordinary AT misses them):
- Its back ground theory which is pretty much scientifically explainable
- Pelvis adjustment
- Releasing excess tension in the abdominal muscles
- Instructions for how to move the body or how to do an action (ordinary AT directions are more about how to support the body in action and little about how to move the body or how to do an action.)
- Having objective standard for state evaluation. (Feed back control)
What’s good in the ordinary AT
BTW, I also list up what’s good in the ordinary AT (My method also covers these):
- Awareness of own use of the body
- Releasing excess tension in the neck
- Direction for the head adjustment (Head forward & up)
- Attention to the head in action
- Thinking of the whole body in action (It could be too broad for me, though)
- Hands-on teaching
- Teachers practice ideal use in teaching.