“Shirley Wade-Linton, an Alexander Technique teacher and Registered Dietitian in Courtenay, Vancouver Island, British Columbia talks with Robert Rickover about ways in which the Technique can help people with eating disorders.”
Shirley: “Because people with eating disorders almost by definition are out of touch with their bodies… They have a terrible relationship with their bodies. They hate their bodies. They fear their bodies. They have zero trust. They are not communicating in a useful way with their bodies. Continuing to do talk therapy with people, you can’t convince an 89-pound anorexic girl that she isn’t fat because it is not rational but if you can do some table work with her… They begin to change their relationship with their body.”
“The size of the body is not relevant to the Alexander teacher. We’re looking for release and openness and a mind that changes from anxiety and fear to calmer and more alert. When that change happens, people are fascinated. They start a new relationship that is not based on size and shape.”
Robert: “That process, particularly table work, could help someone obsessing over their size and nudge them in the direction of being interested in how they function.”
“How does this mechanism in which I live actually work? It takes them away from the root cause of starving themselves or not eat enough.”
“I’ve read in the literature that people with eating disorders don’t like to be touched. That has not been my experience.”
Shirley writes:
When it comes to the area of hunger and satiety, our bodies may seem unreliable. We can confuse feelings of nervousness, boredom, anger or sadness with the feeling of hunger. But when attention is paid, it becomes clear that food is being used to suppress emotions.
Endgaining might be defined as the desire to bring about the end (not being hungry anymore), however inappropriate the means might be to achieve this. We gulp down food simply to stop the feelings of hunger. I used to watch people eating food on the London Tube rather than waiting for a much more pleasant place to eat.
When presented with a meal, the means whereby the end can be accomplished means staying in the present. Quiet mind, soft belly, tasting the food, smelling the food, releasing the death grip on the fork and knife. It means enjoying the moment, staying conscious, not letting the mind wander, but staying in the experience of the food and the cues from the body. Mindful eating increases the enjoyment of food if the food is good and decreases the enjoyment if the food is stale or boring or simply not good tasting.
Inhibition is a capacity to be nonreactive. Inhibition is an action and a freedom. It allows us to keep our options open. How many of us keep our options open when eating a meal? How often do we finish the entire meal because it is on our plate? Do we give our bodies a chance to respond to the input of nutrients and notice when the body is complete with the meal? Or do we react in our habitual way and eat all the popcorn, finish the bag of crisps, eat everything on the plate because that is our habit? We also eat everything on the plate because it tasted so good at the beginning of the meal when we were hungry. We then desire to have that taste again and again and we don’t notice that as the body is satisfied the taste buds signal us to stop.
Imagine stopping and inhibiting our usual reactions and so being present while eating mouthful by mouthful. Being conscious in the action, mindful in the process.
Racist Statements In Torah
DF writes to Marc B. Shapiro: You assert that some things, viz, negative comments about non-Jews or blacks, should be kept out of school. But there are many such statements, about both categories, in rabbinic works down throughout the centuries. Unless one wants to radically redefine the meaning of the word, they are part of Torah. So how is that not censorship? It’s no different than censoring out passages which speak of permissive attitudes towards mingling of the sexes, or countless other things to be documented in your much-anticiapted book. They want to censor in a “conservative” fashion, you want to do so in a “liberal” fashion. Both sides have their reasons. So, how is there any difference between your viewpoint and theirs?
In response to your question, I dont think I was ever taught that blacks are meant to be subjugated. Not that I can remember, anyway. But of course I’ve read of and heard of something similar to that . And who am I to say it’s wrong or right? There’s plenty of such disturbing (to some) viewpoints in Greater Torah and in the Bible itself. (No one will ever be able to explain away Leviticus 27: 3-4, for one simple example.) The same way I dont like censorship from the frum viewpoint, I dont like it from the modernish viewpoint. Obviously I dont think there’s any reason to officially include this point of view in a school’s curriculum, but then again, no one’s ever said it should. It’s never been in any schools’ curriculum. (“Lesson plan for today: First mishna in Elu Metzios; Review for navi bechina; tell students that blacks are meant to be slaves.”) It’s just one out of infinite slices of life in which the Torah has a view. Not saying it should be taught, just saying it should not be consciously excluded. Unless you are afraid of the conclusions to which an honest discussion of the subject may lead, there’s no reason why this concept shouldnt be discussed any more than discussions about whether or not the status of women in modern times has changed. It’s an authentic part of Torah, indeed, much more so, in terms of tradition, than the obscure rishonim frequently brought up in this database age to advocate for one cause or another.
Bottom line is, everyone agrees we need to raise thoughtful, caring Jews. But to achive this goal, if I’m reading right, the charedishe oilam thinks it has to hide some facts, while you think it has to hide others. I favor a libertarian attitude, and say let the student decide for himself.
Marc B. Shapiro responds:
I don’t understand your point DF? There is a difference between prescriptive and descriptive. I think you read it too quickly and didn’t catch the point.
Do you think we should be teaching children that blacks are inferior because maybe there is a rishon or Midrash that says so? In school we try to pass on important values that we believe in. Leter on, when the students are more mature, we can teach them everything when they can appreciate nuance.
And the paragraph you quote from was referring to rebbes telling the students that blacks are inferior or making negative comments about non-Jews. It was about rebbes who teach this as the Torah truth. That is what I meant that this should be kept out of schools. It was not referring to learning about what some people in the past thougth, i.e., historical study, but the expressing of viewpoints as normative which strike us as immoral.
When I speak of racism, I refer to what I heard growing up in school, negative comments about the Schvartzes etc. I think you know what I mean. Haven’t you ever had a rebbe who told you that blacks are supposed to be subjugated because of the curse of Ham? Not exactly a good way to raise thoughtful, caring Jews.