Lost Message? Does anyone else feel this way?

[Scott Sonnon]

From a recent email to RMAX:

> Dear Coach Sonnen --
>
> I've been following your work casually for the last few months,as
> much as one can manage such a thing online. Today, for example, I was
> reading your web page on your upcoming Slow Work training.
>
> I'm not a martial artist, except in so much as we all are. I have
> just enough grounding in physical arts to admire what you are doing.
> I am a reasonably accomplished dancer, a former sabre fencer, and
> otherwise, a dabbler in Aikido, Shotokan Karate, and traditional
> Kenjutsu. That's just enough for me to understand that you are on to
> something. Several somethings, actually.
>
> In my own work, I do know something about flow, and about the nature
> of mastery and deep, transformative learning. I also have an
> admiration for integrative approaches, within any discipline. It's in
> the context of that knowledge that I want to offer you a few words
> about my experience reading about your work. I hope you will accept
> this in the spirit of admiration in which it is offered.
>
> In brief: Your words do not bear witness to the Flow that you say you teach.
>
> I have no doubt that you do indeed teach what it seems that you
> teach. I know that I would have no concern about words or the craft
> of writing were I a student of yours. That's not my concern. My
> concern is the feeling of incongruence between your teaching and the
> words that you use on the page to describe it.
>
> It's not that you don't get your point across. But I suspect there is
> an elegance to your lessons that is absent here. I further suspect
> that, while your students may have to work hard, it's not because
> your lessons are unclear, or poorly expressed. In the case of the
> writing that describes your work, I find that it's an unsatisfying
> struggle for me as a reader.
>
> Perhaps you are working at the edge of your own learning. I know from
> my own experience that it takes time for new ideas to take a graceful
> form, at least verbally. (I'm a visual and kinesthetic learner, so
> that may have something to do with ideas being well formed within me,
> before they are well expressed.) Or perhaps there are commercial
> demands that get in your way, such as a need to create trademarked
> terms for the new synthesis of ancient ideas. I do realize that I am
> speaking only of my own experience here as a reader, not yours as a
> writer.
>
> But for me, the lack of congruence between your words and your
> teachings leaves me having to defend your message. And it shouldn't
> need any defense. It should stand on its own strength and its own
> wisdom, whether it's expressed in a teaching moment in class, in the
> grace and power of your own movement, or in your words.
>
> I have nothing to propose in this regard. I just wanted to share my
> experience as a mindful reader. It's possible that my experience is
> completely the exception. It's possible that your use of language
> appeals precisely to the people you want to attract. But I'm trusting
> my gut on this. And I'm trusting that see this as a sign of my
> respect.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> -- Michael Gilbert
I've asked him to join the forum, so perhaps he will be able to more clearly state what it is that he's trying to say.

If you feel the same, perhaps you could explain more effectively what he's actually stating, and perhaps you could offer some suggestions rather than merely a comment of confusion.

If you disagree with him, could you please explain why?
Thank you.

[Jay76]

Coach

It seems like he is telling you Coach, that your words are different then what you teach..(do physcially.) That is what I got and he just wanted to tell you...


Anyone else think that or something else????

[maxmoon]

my guess would be the terms you use coach.theres alot of your work that took me some time to fully understand.but i dont know if thats your broblem with words,i think its my problem with learning.if u remember, my teenage days were smoking pot and getting brain washed by all sorts of useless info.

in my own life when i talk about cst and clubbells and movment health and biomechanical exercise, the jenaral public doesnt seem to register half of the words i use.in tern making my comunication usless.lol,usually they are words that i learned the meaning of right here from your teachings.besides words are just tools.i can teach some one nunchux work with my body alot better then i can with words.

when i found this site and started reading,i was overwealmed with the terms used.ironicly that is one of the main reasons i kept reading and here i am today on an amazing adventure with cst.

im not sure what he trully means.but u do your things the way you do them. so i dont see a problem with the content on this site.you are an aswome coach.your instruction on the videos is extreamly well done and detailed.but u hear that alot so ill shut up,lol.


anyways hope that helps.

max

[kagejs]

Coach,

Please take this with a grain of salt. I'm very new to your program, and I in no way mean to belittle your work. I'm finding it VERY helpful, I have already made some remarkable gains in my program, and I'm looking forward to continuing with the system for a long time to come.

I should qualify my statements by saying that I own a small book publishing company, so I do editing a lot. I've also written/edited safety procedure manuals for oil companies located in Kuwait, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and Brazil, where the use of written English needs to be so precise as to not cause any misinterpretation of instructions and procedures by non-native English speakers.

With that being said, what I think he's saying (and if I'm correct, something I have also noticed) is that sometimes the message you are trying to get across to your viewers gets lost by the way it's written. I also had a lot of trouble with some of the materials at first because the way you describe things sometimes seem overly-complicated.

One example was actually mentioned on an Amazon.com review of (I believe) your CB book. In it, when you describe the Shoulder Park, you say something to the effect of, "do not rest the Clubbell on any boney profile." The way this is written is very shocking to the reader, because it actually makes the reader stop and think about what a "boney profile" is. In essence, it loses its flow (purposely chosen word there, by the way). It may have been more appropriate to write something like, "don't rest the Clubbell on your collarbone" for the sake of allowing the reader to get the message without having to struggle to understand what you were saying.

I also think that he's giving you a backhanded compliment in saying that your physical instruction/presentation of your material is excellent, but the way you write when trying to explain the same concepts is not as clear, and (for him) quite frustrating.

This is, of course, just my interpretation. It's very ironic that he's trying to tell you that he can't clearly understand what you write, when in fact he does the same exact thing. :)

[Chuck Kechter]

Scott,

I've run into this kind of thing before. . . And recently.

Check out this post:

http://www.mma.tv/TUF/index.cfm?ac=ListMessages&PID=1&TID=468423&FID=21&p=18

Presenting ideas and the problems of language:

You could use "flower-y" poetical language to get your message across.

And you'd have detractors.

You could use corporate business-speak to get your message across.

And you'd have detractors.

You could use the rah-rah language of personal empowerment, ala Tony Robbins.

And you'd have detractors.

You use the language(s) (and "pseudo-language") of compassion and science to get your message across.

And you have detractors (or those that just don't get "it").

I think the problem lies in the fact that some people want "it" all handed to them, rather than trying to work it out themselves, and in some cases they want it handed to them on a silver platter.

Personally, I've never had a problem with your message, or the way it has been presented. If I don't understand something I research it, or ask a question, that way I meet you half-way (so to speak) and what you are trying to impart becomes mine by the very fact of this study--and (I) is the richer for it.

"If we treat people as they are we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be we help them become what they're capable of becoming."
--Goethe

V/R,

Chuck

PS To Josh. . . While I know where you are coming from (I am a writer by avocation), where you wrote:

when you describe the Shoulder Park, you say something to the effect of, "do not rest the Clubbell® on any boney profile."

It is NOT just the collarbone you need to be aware of. . . but ANY. . . boney profile :wink:

Clubbell "hits" bone. . . body goes ouch! :D

[Arluk]

Just some thoughts on language and systems:

I get the feeling that the way things look to some people may not ring a bell right off the bat for others. Some people use different processes or combinations of processes to understand information "prefered systems and sub-systems". The three systems auditory, kinesthetic, visual. Not every person uses the same systems for the same things, often people have a very specific profile for their learing and input process, such as visual prefered for learing kinesthetic. A problem may arise when trying to communicate an idea through words, the person writing or speaking may be using an entirely different system of though to convey an idea than the person reading it. In other words: to a kinesthetic person, painting a picture of the ideas that are intended to be clear would be impossible, but really planting a firm basework for the thoughts and helping them get a grasp on it would help get the idea down pat. It helps me to analyze what I read and what I write when trying to learn or exchange ideas. To communicate to a person in their preffered system is to be in a flow of thought with them.

Because the communication on the forum does not flow with everyone's prefered system of thought doesn't mean that the ideas are wrong or incongruent, it just means that some people will have a more difficult time grasping, seeing or hearing what has been conveyed.


In brief: Your words do not bear witness to the Flow that you say you teach.


But I suspect there is an elegance to your lessons that is absent here. I further suspect that, while your students may have to work hard, it's not because your lessons are unclear, or poorly expressed. In the case of the writing that describes your work, I find that it's an unsatisfying struggle for me as a reader.

I think Michael may need a visual approach to getting a grasp on what your words teach.

Hope this helps

[kagejs]

Chuck, you wrote:


It is NOT just the collarbone you need to be aware of. . . but ANY. . . boney profile

Yes, I agree. The point I was trying to make is that the message of being aware of ANY boney profile on the body could have been written differently so the message was clear without being overly general and more complex.

For example, if I said, "Don't run across the street without looking both ways because you'll get hit by a car." It's obvious that someone wouldn't then run across the street while tractor trailers were going by, simply because that person didn't see any actual cars. That may be a bad example, but you said you understood my point so I'll shut up now. :D

Coach,

I think Arluk also hit it right on the head. The only potential problem I see with using sophisticated explanations is that although the "veterans" will have no problem understanding what you're saying, beginners may have a hard time with it, which could lead to frustration and quitting, or worse yet, injury.

[Aengus]

Coach ,
I'll admit to some people your material can be a bit intimitating. People want things made simple and dumbed down but that's another subject.

Having the ability to comprehend what you read and a having a visual imagination does help. Reading through a book once helps give you and awareness about what exactly a book contains. The second, third and fourth time you read the same book, you can always pick up something new and useful. Now having a companion video just helps the learning process. I know that some swings I was performing from the descriptions was dead-on right, once I saw the video. Some swings weren't. It doesn't make the material any different, it's a persons ability to understand the material being presented and put it that material into action.
As a person learns more in CST or any subject, the material becomes more clear and their knowledge, as well as ability, increases. Having a support system doesn't hurt none either. :wink:

Coach,

I have the thought that I know what he is talking about. Your site copy sometimes fails to communicate the sheer genius of what you have to offer.

When I tell people about Freedom By Degree, I tell them about how animals who survive attacks shake themselves for long periods of time to rid themselves of the traumatic memory of the attack but humans do not.

I talk about how these traumatic memories (what you call fear-reactivity) are at the root of sexual dysfunction, relationship dramas, as well as sports injuries (nobody cares until they are injured anyway).

You began to go down this track with the ad copy for Body-Flow, but then when Freedom By Degree came out, you went back to the performance-oriented gobbledegook that is the hallmark of CST ad copy.

Such an approach is great for members of the tribe, but for the rest of the world it is a little too much.

One of the reasons that yoga is so popular these days is because it offers a certain amount of release from fear-reactivity but it is really very limited. The reason for this limitation is that the roots of yoga came about when some spiritual adept awakened his internal energy and the internal movement of the energy pushed his body into the asanas involuntarily.

People took notice of this and assumed that they could replicate the adept's internal results from mimicking the outward manifestation. Very clever and to a certain degree it works, but it is a lot like someone mimicking a martial movement when they aren't a blank slate (you mention this on the Freedom By Degree tapes), or someone forcing themselves into proper posture (also mentioned on the Freedom By Degree tapes).

The biggest problems with this "reverse-engineering" approach occur when one approaches meditation by attempting to replicate the manifestations that arise out of emptiness. Best example is the phenomenon of kundalini. Kundalini doesn't have to be the disaster that so many experience it as, and the reason it usually is a disaster is because the kundalini is being forced to ascend.

Kinda' like swinging clubbells without having the pre-requisite joint mobility.

Of course, in modern times forcing is unavoidable. People will swing clubs before they have total joint mobility. That is just the way it is in these times.

What I am getting at here is that Freedom By Degree is as close as anyone can get (at least SO FAR) to an "eraser" for the physical manifestation of mental attachments. This application is both specific and general at the same time, and its impact is potentially unfathomable.

One of the errors in human thought arises when people look at the body and the mind as if it were a two-piece "Russian Doll" but once the doll of the body has been opened, there are several dolls of the mind, or levels of attachments. Borrowing from esoteric Buddhism, the first doll of the mind would be that of form.

CST is part of the form-realm. i.e. how many times can I swing the 25lb. clubbell? 1,000 times? 1,500 times? Wow! Look how much muscle Coach has packed on!

Yes, humans (especially men) are addicted to the form realm to why not grab them with promises of form mastery? All well and good, but I would suspect with all the physical transformation you have accomplished Coach, you may not be able to get your throat and thorax opened the way you would like to--no matter how many spinal rocks you perform.

This is because form-based methods of spiritual cultivation (or should I say "freedom" which is less politically charged?) are only tools that give you the space to let go in the mind.

I hate sounding like I am giving a lecture, but I have the thought sometimes that you guys at RMAX lose site of things and focus too much on permutations of the genius which you have to offer. People drown in the sea of forms and miss their chance to let go and be happy.

It is like, "I have freedom from fear reactivity now so I am going to swing a clubbell 10,000 times with one hand while I juggle another in the other. Not enough? Here is an 80lb. 'Challenge' clubbell! Oh wait! Let's use our freedom to kick more ass on the battlefield with Soft-Work!"

What's going on here? Don't misunderstand me, I swing a club and I think learning to fight is one of the more valuable skills to aquire in this world which is so full of people who are really evil. If you want to break world records for the rest of your life in Olympic club swinging I wish you all the gold in the world, but after all those medals you may still be tensing your brow for emphasis when you talk!

There is a whole WORLD of people whose lives would be changed in amazing ways by learning to free themselves of fear-reactivity.

Only a fraction of them want to be marital-artists, club swingers, or cirque du soleil athletes.

Such people are meant to be an inspiration to the common man. They show an extreme, obvious (since it is form-based) example of freedom and some smart people (like us) look and say "imagine what ELSE I could accomplish with the same physical freedom?"

I say all this with the most respect and gratitude for what you bring to this world.

[Randell Waddell]

Morning Ladies and Gents,

I wrote the following just last night on one of my school group's training sessions:


........Addressed things such as fear of impact with ground through wrist and arms, "ballistic" arm and "compound" arm, touching toes, "chasing ants down legs", placement in close proximaty to lead foot, "diamond" position of fingers and initial arm structure, straightening hind leg, small and large rotational momentum aspects, role of semicircular canals and experiences, looking "above diamond" as compared to looking "back through window", leading off other foot, straightening arms and effect on shoulder girdle,etc.

..............

...... tucking of the head to look at one's feet, before allowing one to ("pushup") down and roll forward out of the handstand, tucked up tight, gently and quietly. ...

.......Ps - Please note a lot of the description above may make little sense to anybody but the other teachers working with me, and to the kids. A lot of the descriptions I use above are simply cue words that I found resonate well with the kids - they are not terms Scott or the other instructors may be familiar with - I use this description on the forum as a journal for myself, so that when I do something similar some other time, the description is a reminder for me of what I did last time.


It would take a couple of years, working with the same material consistently, to determine the best terminology that work for all learning types, and that appeals/works for beginner through to the very knowledgable person. It could become very slick.

I would suggest that we are gaining access to Scott's material sooner rather than later. Sooner meaning two years or so rather than 8 years or so being later. I know he has been sitting on material like aspects of the new Softwork material including Shadow work for several years, and is only now about to present it to wider audiences

One solution to any problems experienced above, would be for Scott to release a initial limited edition of his material for selected people, who would work on it for a couple of years giving him feedback, and then he might make another slicker version, if he it didn't hold him back from other evolving stuff and he could find the time. The general public may not get access to his material for many, many years.

I am personally pleased that we get the sooner access. I couldn't give a rats if he put it out in some obscure Penguin language - I would take the images and whatever translations I could get etc, to piece together the magic that this man's incredible brain puts out there.

Scott has probably already considered the limited edition route. Which level of access would you like to be in?

From me personally, Scott - please, please, please allow me to be in that "immediate" access group.

Cheers
Randell
:D

[Scott Sonnon]

RMAX is and always will be an odyssey. Here's why we explore, how we've traveled, what we've discovered, and where we're headed in our journey. We welcome people to join us.

I learned a great deal from this thread. Thank you.

[jimmy23]

Ok LOTS of good responses here, let me add one.

One of my good friends is an ex newspaper editor, a very proficient martial artist and speaks fluent Mandarin,now he teaches creative writing . His take on your writing was two fold.

First, he felt that a lot of what you write about are the same ideas and insights of the many tai chi classics. He said there is an inherent problem with describing certain kinesthtic and emotional sensations verbally.

But (and here is the ugly one) , he felt that the introduction of so many terms truly detracted from the messege. Now, the man was a professional writer for many years, and I tend to respect his opinions on such things. He felt that you tried to include too much information in each sentence, by cramming them full of terms that havent been properly digested or expounded on. This is a man who is a voracious reader, and truly respects your work (he puts you intoa category similar to some of the old school tai chi guys he trained with in China, lifelong devotees with deep insights into their arts) , but he said reading your musings sometimes made his head hurt.

I would tend to agree with much of what Ive read on this thread, you seem to be progressing in your personal practice and sharing what you learn, but it can be hard if not impossible to express this, especially when the insights are relatively new to the writer. I think we all benefit from the lack of inhibition you show in your musings , and it takes a certain amount of humilty, adn trust in ones companions, to offer ideas up that are new and that will evolve further as time adds perspective .

If for some reason you would like direct input from my buddy, Ill send you his email.

[Robert V]

Wow!

This has been some ride.

This might boil down to "should Mr. Sonnon change the way he communicates his message or not".

Guys, I'm not a very intelligent guy. Meaning I don't have a high I.Q., I was never in the Gifted and Talented in school, I have an awful short-term memory, I'm a terrible speller, I can't learn too many things at once, my SAT scores were crap, the only way I was able to get in a university was via the military. I did do exceptionally well in college, but it was only because I was a "study-addict"!

So, Mr. Sonnon's material was of course initially intimidating to me, intellectually and physically.

But it was a challenge to myself to translate his challenging lexicon into something I could understand and communicate to others.

What I found was his choice of communication was totally necessary to truly put his message across.

CST and ROSS are not concepts for the immature or closed mind. The concepts are not for a mind that does not wish to be challenged.

Remember, this isn't a "monkey see/monkey do" program. It's about self-discovery, imagination and creation. He is giving you the tools and you are to create the structure. How can you create without having a good intellectual understanding of the concepts.

If the concepts appear too "foggy", then a dictionary and anatomy book may clear it up for you. But you have to put the energy in to doing that. And if you don't have the initiative to do that then maybe you are not ready for the concepts.

Yes, I agree that twice as many people would come to CST if it was "dumb-downed", but would they be getting the essence of the program? Would they truly have the tools to "discover and create" on their own? I'm not sure.

I think there is a point where we must step in as representatives of CST and be the ones to teach, translate and model.

I think that is what the training programs are all about. He gives us the tools to teach and share.

I find myself uses the same word choices as Mr. Sonnon when I am teaching, for many times it's the best way to express the concept I am teaching. But...it is then up to me to make sure I can "break it down" into analogies and terms they can understand. Again, that's why what I teach is a "workshop" rather than a "class". I'm giving them tools for their own self-discovery and creation. I want to make them independent, rather than dependent.

Why is expanding your vocabulary a crime?

Why is challenging someone to expand their vocabulary a crime?

No bones about it. Mr. Sonnon could bring more people into CST by changing his form of communication.

But what would the quality of those who come be? People who do not have the courage to challenge themselves. People still caught up in "simplicity"? That just does jive with the "sophistication" of CST.

I wish I could talk to the writer of the letter. I could bring him around in no time!

I think this is a very deep and personal issue more Mr. Sonnon. Be true to himself for quality or compromise the quality for quantity.

Maybe I'm wrong!

Maybe there is a way to increase the quantity without compromising the quality.

[Connie Brown]

It would take a couple of years, working with the same material consistently, to determine the best terminology that work for all learning types, and that appeals/works for beginner through to the very knowledgable person. ...
I would suggest that we are gaining access to Scott's material sooner rather than later. Sooner meaning two years or so rather than 8 years or so being later. I know he has been sitting on material like aspects of the new Softwork material including Shadow Work for several years, and is only now about to present it to wider audiences
I totally agree with this Randell.

As a professional tech writer my job is to take info from highly specialized fields with precise dense language and make it accessible where necessary to a "general" readership so I know something about this.

(one of our tech writing in-jokes is, that we have actually written the docs to explain things for rocket scientists...)

There are several factors going on here.

- The special language of CST is jargon in its pure and functional sense - language that elegantly encapsulates dense, new or re-purposed and specifically useful concepts in a short, memorable term.

- Readers are used to health and fitness writing done in words of one syllable - regardless of whether or not the concept itself is simple.

- Readers are used to easy reading on the internet. so something that needs to be read slowly, pondered, and thought about - reader skills are going, going, gone for this kind of reading in many cases.

- There is inherent tension in using familiar, one-syllable words to describe things that are new to people. And heaven knows this kind of thinking about movement and exercise is new to me. I never heard or read a fitness writer anywhere, write or talk like Scott and the CST cadre do.

So I will go beyond my first thought upon reading what the person wrote, which was -

oh, puh-leeze...

and add my vote to Randell's. Give me the good stuff however it comes and I will unpack it by reading AND doing and reading some more.

[radiantkd]

Hi Scott,

I think it is incredibly presumptious and arrogant for someone to come blasting in and tell you how much he respects you but your writing sucks.

Not ok in my book. He has not done his homework and he doesn't even h ave the um, I guess balls would be appropriate in this situation, LOL, to say it directly.

Whenever, I get these off the wall notes (and you can be sure I do), I see what truth there is, bless the bearer for that, and dismiss the rest.

As a witer, I think it is reasonable to say that the strength of your writing is not at the level of your body work. And we can be sure that the strength of my body work is no where near the level of my writing <VBG>. Gee, you were off crafting a whole miraculous, life changing system. and you wanted to share it so you wrote about it in the style you teach about it. Your writing is essentially an *oral* transmission. Very powerful, very direct and to the point for your consumers. And...it will improve as you work with it. Functional.

And, I can sympathize from the bottom of my heart. When we stand out there, some folks think that gives them the right to tell us what they think of our work, our lives, even our being. How about we leave that task to our teachers and those we invite to critique our work and process :-)

warmly,
Kathleen

[StuMcD]

Hi Scott,

I think cause of the problem most folks have with your writing is with them and not with you.

The sad fact of the matter is that most people who are interested in any type of physical culture are not interested in what makes up a process, they are only interested in applying the process and seeing the results.

You know as well as I do that this is not a mindset your work applies to. You want people to understand what you are presenting rather than just knowing it. Most people just want to know and apply a process as I said before. They have no interest in working out what is best for them, they want to be told what to do.

They have no interest in being in this alone, together.

Your writings are not the type where you can just read and apply. They require analysis by the reader of both the material and themselves.

Reading your material doesn't (for me at least) have a beginning and an end, it has a cycle.

I read something of yours and most often do make some discoveries in the first instance. Often though, I come to truly understanding something of yours when I am reading something else. This takes a great deal of mental commitment to the material which is something that most people just aren't willing to do.

So, in closing, you have a choice. You can keep aiming your material at the thinkers who do and explore, (knuckledraggers) or you can aim it also at the doers who do but don't think and only feel confident in retreading the well trodden ground of a Guru.

Keep it up bro,
Stu.

[rbrown]

Oh why not one more? :wink:

One thing I would say is not to be too hard on the fellow who wrote the original note. He sounds as if he is really trying to offer constructive criticism in an effort to make Coach's message more clear.

That said, I quite enjoy the way Coach Sonnon writes. He definitely has his own voice as well as his work cut out for him. I've never really had any trouble understanding the essence of Coach's message. If I've had any trouble at all, it's due to my inexperience with the world of "physical culture" and I'm glad for the expansion of my knowledge. I guess what it boils down to is, any problems I've had with Coach's writing are a reflection on my, not on Coach Sonnon.

Cheers!

[radiantkd]

Oh why not one more? :wink:

One thing I would say is not to be too hard on the fellow who wrote the original note. He sounds as if he is really trying to offer constructive criticism in an effort to make Coach's message more clear.


I am going to respectfully disagree :-)
If he was asked his opinion - then good.
If he had been working the program and said, *hey coach, I have some thoughts about your style, want to hear them?*, then good...

But that is not what I heard. It did not feel *constructive* to me at all.

Sorry, but I don't like it. :-(

Kathleen

[admin]

Scott,
I totally agree with Kathleen. The guy is seeing the finger instead of the moon. If your material is daunting, so is becoming truly human and realizing our vast potential. The ego is all too capable of turning its own Fear-Reactivity into polite discourse to maintain its armour. This guy reminds me of someone holdidng a nugget of gold freshly pulled from the ground, and bitching about the dirt!
A principle you stress again and again is incremental progression. If someone cannot see that in your material, get 'em a white cane! :roll:
-Michael

[radiantkd]

And BTW, NOBODY messes with my coach!!!!

See what you created!!! Egads, give a woman some Clubbells and she is mouthy!!

Well, actually I was that way when I was a wee thing. Got it socialized outta me, LOL. Got those black clubs and got brave again.

<VBG>

Kathleen

[rbibbs]

Getting ideas across with words... writing, speaking... has two parts. Author/speaker, and reader/listener.

In person, when the listener isn't able to follow what we say, we get a nice bodylanguage message, furled brows, and we know to explain ourselves from another perspective. And since we're 'in person', speaker and listener probably have some pre-established common ground and a desire to understand/be understood.

In writing, when the reader isn't able to follow what we write, we don't know what's going to happen (or why). The reader might reread until he 'gets it', do more research to bring himself up to speed on the subject, just move on and hope he 'gets' the next topic, or put the book down and watch South Park. Or as happened to me when I wrote a 'letter to the editor', one reader went out of his way to find something disagreeable about what I'd written. We were actually on the same side of an issue, and he was reading an intent into the text that I most assuredly had not 'put there'.

The nature of writing is that it will always be subject to interpretation. Understanding another's thoughts is always a challenge, and challenges strike people differently. Some dig in and say "I'm going to understand this if it kills me", some toss it and say "The guy who wrote this was an (expletive)", and everything in between.

I've conferred with career authors, and skilled as they are, they run across the exact same gamut of responses. From "Whoa, I always thought that but I never heard anybody put it that way", to "Whoa, I didn't see that coming but the lightbulb really came on when you said it", to "Yeah well everybody's got an opinion", to "Huh??", to "What a crock", to "I'm going to kill you and your entire family".

I'm an 800 SAT verbal. I don't get 'everything' that Scott writes the first time through, or even the third. At times, I have to experience it in my own endeavors before I understand what he was getting at. The material is deep. It won't necessarily 'make sense' to everybody right away. How does one accurately describe the neuro-musculo-skeletal sensation of 'perfect' posture and distribution of loads and tensions? Some readers will recall the words, and seek the sensation as they go along in their training. Some readers will have no frame of reference, and perhaps find one, deliberately abandon trying to find one, or just forget to look. Some readers will have a rigidity that precludes discovery.

No printed work can be all things to all readers. The best we can do is throw the stuff out there, with the best of intentions, and hope to hit somewhere within the bellcurve of comprehension.

(Don't even get me started on how hard it is to deign a complex motion from three still photographs. :evil: )

[SFE]

The only thing that I can contribute to this thread would be an interesting observation that I've noticed in such video tape sets as Body Flow and Maximology...

From what I've seen when Coach Sonnon is explaining his concepts to an audience, and this is key, he often tries to let them think for themselves (ask a question, let them answer in thier own words) and then correct or support what was said. He doesn't lecture as if reading from one of his books, he seems to want you to figure things out in your own way. Those who choose to only read what Coach Sonnon has to say are stuck taking in things at his VERY advanced level.

If someone picked up a book/visited a website and is interested in CST and wants to take thier training to the next level they cannot possibly hope to get there without taking the next step. Either go to a seminar or do the next best thing and get a visual version of what was said. To complain about how a person writes seems to be a very lazy way of trying to get someone to write a book/article/etc. their way, the way that they want to see things. I prefer a challenge, to try and understand new things.

I think that it's important to point out that how Coach Sonnon writes is how he best can put into words what comes out of his own brain. He can't think "how would someone else's brain interprit this information?", we'd lose out on the majority of what he has to offer.

Just my humble opinion, I'm no expert in any field :oops: !

[Arluk]

I just want to remind everyone that words, even letters are just metaphors, symbols ascribed to concentual meanings. It seems that words can only come close to truth as they are simply metaphors built out of thousands of years of combine grunting to describe thought. They do not convey thought directly only point at what might have been thought, leaving the purveyor to their own perspective. Every being seems to have their own unique perspective, to me it is not for us to decide that any person's perspective is good or bad. Apparently some perspectives do not work well with others, but since it seems we are "alone in this together" it must be our task to let others have their unique perspective and live with them as peacfully as possible. Trying to work with and learn from those perspectives we find difficult to accept seems to me one of the greatest paths of learning one can take. Coach Sonnon's material has been pivitol in my understanding of my body/mind, its capacity, functionality and regenerative abilities, and I haven't even scratched the surface of what is to be had. I try to learn as much as I can from every person I interact with, weather I hate them or love them is aside the point for me, in fact the more difficult their reality is for me to understand, the more I feel I have to learn from them. I realized a while back that by looking out for not only my well being but the well being of all the other beings seems better for me and everyone else too. If Coach Sonnon decides to simplify communication by increasing the complexity his thoughts on the subject of communication, I think it could be good for us all. It is not my decision to make all I can do is add my unique perspective to the fray intending the best just like I feel all of you are doing to the best of your ability as well.

[Jarlo Ilano]

Getting ideas across with words... writing, speaking... has two parts. Author/speaker, and reader/listener.


This is exactly what it is. Chuck Kechter also said it well in the mma.tv forum. "One last thing. . . From a writer's perspective, language is a funny thing. What is clear and concise for one, is drivel for another."

The email writer says he "understands" your intent. Yet, he does not understand your writing style. Yet, how can he understand the material, if he has only read what you have written online, and at the same time profess that he has trouble comprehending your writings?

His complaint, in my opinion, can be "reframed" as "You (Coach Sonnon), are not writing your concepts the way that I (Michael Gilbert) would write them."

His belief, I'm sure, and he is entitled to it. However, the great diversity of written expression, is dependent upon unique voices. To change your voice, in order to satisfy the lowest common denominator is a disservice both to your personal, creative energy, and to others who vibe well with your individual expressive style.

We, as readers, often know within a few sentences, if we are going to like reading what is to follow. Or whether it will be like muddling through that required reading we had in school. We all bring a certain context into everything we read. It is definitely influenced by our educational and personal background. Yet, to dismiss a particular writing style, just because it doesn't jibe with our preference, is silly. We would miss out on alot of great insight. As most people who have posted in response to this thread have stated, it behooves us to ask questions when we have difficulty comprehending a certain phrase or idea.

I enjoy Coach Sonnon's writing in most parts, and in some parts not so much. That is because what I read is colored by my particular perspective. Because I have been educated in a specific manner, words that have a distinct meaning for me, yet defined somewhat differently in Coach Sonnon's usage, will be a little off-putting. I will then need to "empty my cup" and read through again.

Should Coach change his writing style? Only if he wants to, and sees a particular benefit of editing from one draft to another. And only if it does not dilute his personal expression simply to make it "easier to read".

One last thing.

The email states "I've been following your work casually for the last few months, as much as one can manage such a thing online. Today, for example, I was reading your web page on your upcoming Slow Work training."

It is Softwork. Not Slow Work. Is it not? Perhaps he has been too "casual" in his reading... :wink:

[kagejs]

As I'm reading all of the responses, I'm pleased to see so many passionate people discussing the issue. Everyone seems to have a genuine affection for Coach and his teachings, and everyone seems willing to give opinions to "further the cause." It's refreshing to see on a forum.

However, I have to say that the tone of some of the responses sound rather elitist in nature. In essence, many of you seem to be saying "they just want it spoonfed to them," or "if they don't understand it, tough... they should open their minds." This attitude is unfortunate, in my opinion. I've been training in martial arts for 29 years; I was a classical music composition major in college; I am a computer programmer; I'm a book publisher; and despite all of those things that require an ability to digest technical information, I sometimes have trouble reading Coach's work. If I'm having trouble understand the way Coach writes sometimes, does that mean I am only looking to be spoonfed? Not at all. Does that mean that my mind is not open? Absolutely not. What it means is that I can't understand what he's saying sometimes due to the way it's written. (And no, I haven't been repeating the same 2 years of martial arts training 14 times, either, in case you were thinking that.) Sorry, but sometimes I just don't get it. I often have to ask my friend to explain it to me, which is fine because I'm already "hooked." But what about the person who isn't decided yet?

One person wrote:


If someone picked up a book/visited a website and is interested in CST and wants to take thier training to the next level they cannot possibly hope to get there without taking the next step. Either go to a seminar or do the next best thing and get a visual version of what was said. To complain about how a person writes seems to be a very lazy way of trying to get someone to write a book/article/etc. their way, the way that they want to see things. I prefer a challenge, to try and understand new things.

It's obvious that they can't take their training to the next level without taking the next step. However, if the person has so much trouble getting the initial message, do you think that person will even take the next step? Do you think someone is going to buy the book, say to themselves that it's way too complicated for them to understand, and then go out and buy the DVD? Most people are going to think that the DVD will be presented the same way as the book and never buy it.



If the concepts appear too "foggy", then a dictionary and anatomy book may clear it up for you. But you have to put the energy in to doing that. And if you don't have the initiative to do that then maybe you are not ready for the concepts.


Most people don't want to have a dictionary near them when they're reading. It just isn't going to happen. And I think that the general consumer who is new to something like CST isn't going to buy one book to better understand another book before they've even decided if they want to further explore the content of the original book. They are going to read 10 or 20 pages, decide that it's way too much work to understand, and then put it down forever.

Coach, I'm not trying to defend this guy. He does come off as kind of a putz. I'm also not saying that all of your work is too complicated. That's not the case. I guess it really comes down to what audience you're interested in marketing to. If it were me, I would use a significant portion of your website as a "dumbed-down" beginner version of your methods to attract the attention of newbies and slowly introduce the terminology and philosophy of your system as to not cause information overload. It is there, after all, where you will win over or lose new Tribe members more than any other place. There is a way to present the technical information in such a way that both the technically-inclined and not-so inclined can benefit.

I also think that what Randell wrote is spot on, and incredibly insightful. Thank you for sharing that with me!

Rant over... :wink:

[anthonyantosh]

I don't chime in too much around here, but this thread hits home.
Coach, everyone needs to be reaffirmed every once in a while that what they are doing is making a difference.
Mr Gilbert has his perception, based on, well almost nothing. He is outside looking in. He does not have the same views as the people who have been with you for a while. Yes, your language is much different than mine. But does that mean that the problem is you? No.
Stay on track. You have helped so many people.
Thank You Coach


tony antosh

[jphaas]

One of the things that occured to me while reading the previous 20 some posts is that all fields have their own particular jargon. CST is no different. I have spent 15 years of my life training in Japanese Martial Arts which has required me (and those training with me) to learn Japanese words, concepts, culture, etc. When I teach a beginner a wrist twist I call it an "omote gyaku". Does he know what this means? Not off hand, no. Could I simply say "wrist twist" and have him get it immediately, yes. But the culture of my martial art uses Japanese terminolgy even though we are learning it in the United States. Should I translate all of the Japanese words I use in MA training into English so that the masses can readily and easliy absorb them and use them? I don't think so. When I tell someone that they should "boshi ken the butsumetsu" couldn't I just say, "hit him with a thumb strike to the ribs"? Yes, but again, I shouldn't have to. CST has it's own jargon, it's own vernacular. Learn it, improve your vocabulary, and use it. That simple. Keep going!!! (or I could say "Gambatte Kudasai") :D

Jon Haas

[kagejs]

I'm not one to normally disagree with my bud Jon, but he can slap me around later for it. The reason why Jon's scenario works is because he's communicating the concepts (and therefore the terminology) in a one-to-one, physical, hands-on environment. I have no problem with this, because whether or not the person grasps the term "omote gyaku" in their first few lessons is irrelevant, AS LONG AS someone is physically taking them through the motions of the technique while explaining the principles.

The written word, however, is obviously different. The reader and the author don't have the luxury of one-on-one contact to explain what the reader doesn't understand, UNLESS it's written in such as way as to maximize the message without minimizing the experience.

[jaloo]

Coach --

When I fist read Body Flow, I had to pause at several places and re-read the passage. This wasn't due to bad writing on your part, just what you were saying didn't flow with my current patterns in reading and thinking.

Through your work I am deconditioning movement patterns that I have held for a long time. Your writing works in the same way, opening new ways of thinking and consideration. I can't speed through Body Flow and have returned to it several times as my Warrior Wellness practice gives me a new framework for understanding the book. Each time I find places where I need to pause and re-read a passage. I look forward to these pauses now as it is the hallmark of a new discovery.

Thanks for all your work and exploration.

[frrogg1son]

I'm a lawyer. I eat or starve depending on my ability to speak and write, to hear and understand. I also try not to get too upset about what other people say or write.

I am grateful for this thread because of all I have learned from the person who started it and from the tribe's responses. I am further along in my journey because the man dared to write what he thought and people dared to reply. Thanks to everyone. And to my tribal brothers, I say, don't be too hard on the guy. We all start somewhere.

Here's my take: When I recently started with the Clubbell book, the Be Breathed video and the Warrior Wellness videos, I couldn't understand most of it.

I picked up my 10 pounders and they felt funny and strange in my hands. I had no coordination. I had no grip strength. I had no pictures in my head of what to do or how to do it. It was even worse than the first time I tried to ride a bike. At least then I had seen many others perform that skill.

But I started to swing by Clubbells. And I started to breathe. And I started to move my body.

What I learned was that I had a starting point. I could at least do SOMETHING. I could pick up the clubs. I could move them. It was such a low starting point that I would be embarrassed to share it with all you studs.

But I had my starting point.

And I kept swinging and breathing and moving.

Each couple of days I would revisit the book and tapes.

Slowly but surely, MORE OF WHAT SCOT WAS SAYING WAS MAKING SENSE.

My mind and body were using my personal experiences to enable me to find a frame of reference for what Scot was saying.

As a beginner, I still don't understand many things. A simple pre-swing clean to order is still foreign territory to me. I see Scott do it effortlessly with 25 pounders on the video. I read about it on page 126 in the manual. BUT I HAVEN'T CONQUERED THAT TERRITORY YET. I am a visitor there, like a foreigner visiting the Big Apple. I use my legs to push up. That part I understand. I breath out hard. I understand that. I see that Scot doesn't raise his shoulder(s). So I don't (but I wish I could). But I don't yet have the grip strength or the forearm strength yet to imitate Scott's seemingly effortless lift. I still have to flare out my elbows and forearms a bit too much. But my cleans are a hundred times better than when I started. Hell, I didn't know what a Clubbell "pre-swing clean to order" even was a month ago!

Yet there are other moves, like the basic swinging clean to order, which I can do a hundred times in a row. Each time I practice it, I learn more about breathing, about balance, about my back, my hips, my forearms. I learn about velocity, about deceleration, about relaxing through the move. All of this was unknown, foreign territory to me before. And as I re-read the materials and re-watch the video, more and more things make sense to me. I see more nuances that I haven't yet explored.

And I know that as I continue to work on this very basic move, the equally basic "pre-swing clean to order" will become my territory sooner or later. And I know that cleaning to my pecs or to my back will be a very, very short step because I don't have trouble with these things, so much as I have to develop the initial strengths to begin the propulsion.

I am extremely grateful for the many levels and layers of meaning contained in Scott's work. I've tried the 500 of this and 250 of that and 3 minutes of the other. That's all very easy to understand. But I want and need more depth, more art, more grace, more integration, more personal development.

So I say to our new friend: If you don't try it and practice it, you can not begin to understand what Scot is saying. You can not gain knowledge merely by reading.

We all chuckle when we recall that the old King James Bible uses the phrase "Adam knew Eve", meaning that they had intercourse and that she conceived. But it's now all that off-base. Early modern English usage of the word "know" meant a heck of a lot more than head knowledge (should I write "mind" knowledge?). I thought I loved my wife when I married her three decades ago. Well, guess what? I barely had a clue what love really meant compared to what I know now. I have elderly clients who care for very sick spouses. Their examples show me that I still have a whole lot more to learn. How will I learn to better love my wife? By putting into practice what I know, what I see and what I learn.

My conclusion? There is really no such thing as head knowledge. If your mind and body don't work together to do it, you really don't "know" Eve, now do you?

God bless you, Scott, for showing me what you "know" and for giving me the space and freedom to learn how my mind and body can experience "knowing" these fantastic skills.

And let's not attack our good friend who started this thread. He knows a lot of things that I'll never know and I respect him for that. And Lord knows I spout off about a lot of things I know nothing about. I am, after all, a lawyer.........

Best, Bruce

[kagejs]

Bruce,

Very nice post. I see that you live in Haddon Heights. Maybe you, myself, and Jon and get together and swing one day.

[Randell Waddell]

Morning Bruce,



I thought I loved my wife when I married her three decades ago. Well, guess what? I barely had a clue what love really meant compared to what I know now. I have elderly clients who care for very sick spouses. Their examples show me that I still have a whole lot more to learn. How will I learn to better love my wife? By putting into practice what I know, what I see and what I learn.

My conclusion? There is really no such thing as head knowledge. If your mind and body don't work together to do it, you really don't "know" Eve, now do you?

God bless you, Scott, for showing me what you "know" and for giving me the space and freedom to learn how my mind and body can experience "knowing" these fantastic skills.

And let's not attack our good friend who started this thread. He knows a lot of things that I'll never know and I respect him for that. And Lord knows I spout off about a lot of things I know nothing about. I am, after all, a lawyer.........


I take my hat off to you - I believe all of the replies to date have offered valuable insights though some of the above from your response particularly resonated with me - thank you greatly for "putting pen to paper".

Cheers
Randell. :D

[radiantkd]

Ok, guys, I will shut up and bless the dude for what he started. :-)

You guys rock.

Kathleen

[Randell Waddell]

Ladies and Gents,

I would like to suggest that one practical way of supporting beginners (at least here on the forum ) would be to get the Glossary of Terms thread initiated eons ago up and running.

[ http://circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2196&highlight=glossary ]

I know perhaps Scott could do it if he had the time, but I would prefer he use his energy to prepare his latest offerings for us, whilst if each of we forum members contributed even two or three terms, the glossary would fill up quick time.

Respectfully
Randell. :D

[Mark]

I don't believe that Michael Gilbert had dificulty understanding the terminology used, rather the writing is confusing-

When I first read Body-Flow I thought it was great, the content was superb. However, the grammar was not. I think my english teacher would give the book a C+. Large vocabulary is used, but the way it is used is confusing. The book is filled with faulty paralellisms, no transitions and I even saw a couple spelling mistakes (Discuss is not spelled "discus"). Like Mr. Gilbert said, the book didn't "flow"

But the book helped me tremendously and a lot of other people too, so Coach, I would suggest you get someone to revise and edit your future books.

Just constructive critisicim,
-mark

[Scott Sonnon]

Kathleen, love you. I suspect that his message lacked sincerity considering he signed his email with his business website for "communications consultation" services. Hopefully, he'll prove me wrong and come to the forum after having actually worked with the material sufficiently to discuss the specifics and offer constructive criticism instead of 'casual' complaint.

Randall, great suggestion: http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2196

Mark, been on it for awhile: http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3058

[Brian Martens]

I'll admit I have a limited number of RMAX materials (IOUF, Grapplers Toolbox, Shockability and the Zdrovye breathing tape), but I never found Scott hard to understand. It surprises me when people say "his language is confusing"....I think he is clear and specific. And I'm no genius.......

[Scott Sonnon]

Thank you all for your feedback.

I just sent Michael the following email message:
Dear Michael,
We discussed your comments on my forum and I wanted to write you to thank you. You're absolutely correct about the need to improve my writing skills. I have collected a team of absolutely brilliant authors to help me. The 2nd Edition of Body-Flow will be amazing!
Thank you,
Scott Sonnon

All of you have contributed to this, and I hope you will continue to explore, grow and contribute.

[Jrichardson]

I have no problem with this, because whether or not the person grasps the term "omote gyaku" in their first few lessons is irrelevant, AS LONG AS someone is physically taking them through the motions of the technique while explaining the principles.


That said, only "omote gyaku" actually encapsulates the movement, however it is arrived at. "wrist twist" could potentially have hundreds of interpretations, while "omote gyaku" only one. The value of jargon is being able to say exactly what you mean, efficiently.


The written word, however, is obviously different. The reader and the author don't have the luxury of one-on-one contact to explain what the reader doesn't understand, UNLESS it's written in such as way as to maximize the message without minimizing the experience.

That's true... but what to describe? Different people are going to percieve different things as important, and so are inevitably going to leave out details that could be vital to someone else's understanding. This has been true of written accounts of martial art and physical culture since the invention of written language.

What does it mean to "maximize the message"? To make it available to the widest audience? To achieve the deepest, most meaningful description? To boil it down into maxims? :wink: These goals can often be at odds with one another.

I like Randell's idea of releasing multiple versions of the same material. I'd go a step further, though, and after the limited release, put out both "deep" and "wide" versions of the material...

[Ryan Murdock]

I wanted to address this question of vocabulary in ROSS from a slightly different perspective, one that Robert Verdell touched on.

My martial arts background is Bujinkan. When my training group and I first began using Rmax materials, we wondered at the highly specific terms Coach Sonnon was using (such as 'force vector', 'parallel and concurrent force systems'). They seemed to us needlessly complicated, even a bit anal. It didn't take long to realize that no other vocabulary was possible at this level of refinement.

Coach Sonnon is talking about going beyond the concept of technique, going beyond the classical traps, to take your understanding to another level entirely. It occurs to me that ROSS is a way of seeing things as much as anything, and the precise vocabulary employed is completely necessary. The words we use shape how we see things, they can limit or they can expand our horizons. If you say 'punch' or 'strike', you immediately have a preconceived idea of what that means, and your responses are therefore limited. But if you speak of 'saturation of force' or 'non-intentional striking', you are suddenly free to apply force in any manner, and only then can you truly appreciate that there really is no difference between striking and grappling.

To cite another example, in the Bujinkan we had three basic ways of attacking the wrist: omote gyaku (to the outside), ura gyaku (to the inside), and hon gyaku (down the middle). It's easy to get stuck with just these three options. So if omote isn't working you struggle to switch to ura,... Because in the framework you've built in your mind you have only these three options. But what about all the degrees in between? Better to study the function and disfunction of the wrist, and principles such as Active Insufficiency, a la Arthrokinetics. By not labelling these things, by simply understanding the joint, you free yourself and you access all possible options.

You see this in ROSS as well. By examining an incoming strike and applying this precise terminology you actually begin to see force vectors rather than 'roundhouse punches' or 'side kicks' (and thus the specific defences that can be applied to each). You go beyond thinking of Method 1, 2 or 3 (Shockability) and begin seamlessly creating planes with any part of your body. You see the same thing in IOUF, this same shedding of labels.

I don't know if I've written this as clearly as I've seen it in my head, and as clearly as I've seen it come out of me on the mats. But I feel that this highly specific vocabulary that Coach Sonnon uses is essential to grasping the freedom beyond technique that he is offering. It's necessary to first train your mind to see things in a completely new way. Precise vocabulary seems to start that process.

There are some who complain that Coach Sonnon complicates things on purpose, that he thinks he's smarter than everyone else and refuses to speak plain English (I've seen this on other forums, not here at RMax). Those people miss the point that the Rmax performance enhancement products are the grad school of the martial arts world. It's necessary to step up to the challenge. It's not possible to dumb it down. This is the only forum I've seen with such a high calibre of discussion, such an absence of the usual egos and the 'my teacher is tougher than your teacher' crap. It says a lot for Coach Sonnon's work that he is attracting such intelligent, insightful students.

[Randell Waddell]

When my training group and I first began using Rmax materials, we wondered at the highly specific terms Coach Sonnon was using (such as 'force vector', 'parallel and concurrent force systems'). They seemed to us needlessly complicated, even a bit anal. It didn't take long to realize that no other vocabulary was possible at this level of refinement.


Great points - many people have experienced and described much the same conclusion and open ended progression with Scott's material, on this and other forums.

Cheers
Randell. :D

[rbibbs]

Two other things happen between writing and reading, in material this specific and technical. First, and no offense to anyone, it's just a statistic... the 'average' person reads at 8th grade level, authors write around 12th grade, and authors of master's level material are thinking around 18th.

The other thing is the challenge of new terminology. That's going to happen anytime a student starts from scratch in a new idiom. Biomechanics is applied physics, so sure it's a little awkward to comprehend for anyone who wasn't exposed/doesn't remember the terminology. Foreign language at first. Terms like 'vector' need to be explained, and I think they are, but we have to use some term for that concept, there's already a word for it, and putting it in "everyday speech" (like 'wrist lock') wouldn't make it any more understandable. Hey, it's only six letters.

Technical writing 'presumes' technical reading. That is, the author puts it down in language that adequately describes it (his 'talent' notwithstanding), AND assumes that the reader is motivated enough to integrate the terms with which he's unfamiliar. Almost like, if readers 'already knew' everything the author was talking about, what then is the point of reading it, or writing it for that matter?

[Cilian McHugh]

I can see that some people would be a little overwhelmed by the verbose quality of Scott's work, but to be honest: I've always enjoyed this aspect of the material, by forcing yourself to sit down and figure it out you gain a better understanding most of the time in my experience, than if you can 'get the gist' in a first reading.

I'd also add that the new direction of specifying the direction (e.g. CST IC seminars, Softwork IC seminars, CST Wellness, ROSS) of the material in a way makes it more accessible. People are able to choose the material that suits their interests and are therefore more likely to have an appreciation of the vocabulary (or at least, pick it up relatively quick)

[Niko]

Coach,

I love the way you write and just remember one of your tenet's: Sophisticate, do not simplify.

[sol]

I want to echo Josh Sager's (kagejs) post and say that I see a lot of
defensiveness here. As a professional writer and editor myself, I've
had my writing critiqued far less gently than this, and frankly I'm a
better writer for it -- even when I disagreed with the comments.

Even more importantly, I'm a better LEARNER now, for knowing it is
possible to disconnect my ego from how -- and what -- I learn. That
is, to allow myself to learn from all sources without rejecting them
out of hand.

I don't understand why there so much emotional reaction here. Do you
really feel that Coach needs to be defended against comments about his
writing? I think he's a lot stronger than that. I think he's wiser
than that, too.

I myself am an adamant supporter of Coach Sonnon's work. I use it, I
follow it, I practice it daily. But he's human, like the rest of us,
and not quite perfect -- yet. :) Have you noticed how he shows us BY
EXAMPLE that we should be willing to learn from others and improve,
without our letting our egos stand in the way of that process? That is
a wonderful and liberating thing to learn.

Someone commenting on Coach's writing is not a personal attack, either
on him or on you. It's information. How you react to it is your
CHOICE.

I'm surprised at the level of defensiveness I see here. Maybe there is
some fear behind this? I would not have predicted these sorts of
reactions when I read the original post.

I believe the defensiveness clouds useful discussions on the topic of
writing and presenting Coach's material -- though not necessarily on the
topic of how to LEARN -- should we start THAT topic instead? Hm.

I have comments on the substance of this thread, but frankly, I have
hesitations about making myself a target for this kind of hostility so
early in my membership here.

[Chuck Kechter]

sol,

Can't (and won't) speak for everone that's posted here.

But for myself, there is no anger, fear, or defensiveness.

Please remember that it is very hard, if not impossible, to tell TONE on the internet (or through email for that matter. . . :wink:--unless you use emoticons that is :) ).

I feel that there were some good obesevations made, and some good questions asked, both about Coach Sonnon's approach to writing, as well as the content, and possible intentions of the original writer.

If you have something to contibute, please do, that's how we all learn and grow.

V/R,

Chuck

I haven't read all the posts on this thread but I found something that might be relevent.

I have a book called dianetics the evolution of science, which is by a guy who has been studying the brain and how it works for a long time, and the first page reads

"In reading this book, be very certain you never go past a word you do not fully understand. The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood. The confusion or inability to grasp or learn comes AFTER a word that the person did not have defined and understood."

There is more written but I think you get the point.

Hope this helps.

[Mark]

sounds great Coach
-mark

[DianeG]

I'm going to add something of my experiences on this subject.

When I was going to college, part of my student aid package was a job tutoring English as a Second Language to newly-arrived Asian students. I had no prior knowledge of tutoring - only a knowledge of English since a child. My students ran from College educated to - I suspect - never having seen a book before.

Each and every one was perfectly motivated to learn and thats what got us through. When I was unable to express what I needed them to understand, I had the luxury of going over (and over and over) again until I got through. Sometimes I'd stay up nights trying to find a way to make myself clear, and when I finally did it was one of the greatest rewards I've ever known. Making a differance in someone's life.

I feel this is what Scott does for us. All of us. He doesn't have the luxury of going 'over and over' but he does his best. I owe him alot and I just want to say 'Thank YOU'

Blessings,
Diane

[Ryan Murdock]

Rick,

Further to your last post. I agree completely. Perhaps the challenge is not to change the writing, but to explain (in the ad copy or otherwise) why such highly precise vocabulary is necessary.

Adopting this terminology changes the way you see things, in the moment. You begin to process information differently and you shed a few more layers of labels, ironing out a few more wrinkles of interference in the mind-body link.

Our society is too used to being spoonfed. CST for Dummies, that sort of thing. It seems that only a small proportion is ever fully willing to step up to the challenge, learn a new language, and take responsibility for their own progress. This Forum seems blessed with a disproportionate slice of the willing few.

[Karmadog]

Could it be that the problem lies in the the essence of the culture of these forums and Scotts efforts at integrating new conceptual frameworks into a culture that is not used to dealing with such frameworks?

It seems to me that coach Sonnon comes from a background of a martial arts/powerlifting (hopefully I'm not stereotyping) and when I read body-flow I strongly felt that the book was touching on things of a spiritual nature or at least a study in the evolution of consciousness as it relates to our physical being...pretty heavy stuff!! Difficult to articulate with specificity due to 1) new paradigm 2) lack of a prevalent cuture (group that shares paradigm) 3) lack of agreed upon Jargon

I think of a book I read by an author names Choyam Trungpa (sp?) called "sacred path of the spiritual warrior" (I think) in which the author was able to discuss such slippery topics such as describing what the emotion of compassion should feel like in such a clear way that you knew excactly what he meant. This is a rare gift.

Could it be that Coach Sonnon is establishing a fledgling culture that is neither lug head gym rat nor fruity new ager...but includes aspects of both??? It would seem to me the 2 are not typically comfortable bedfellows in our culture as it stands, but as the saying goes all sides of the pyramid lead to the apex and there opens the eye of god. (pure awareness). I think that you can only go so far down a path before it starts to include aspects of every other path.

perhaps the difficulty lies in that specificity of definition..while more specific is less inclusive of range of detail, while more general inclusive statements are more open to profound implications..if that makes any sense?

[Scott Sonnon]

Curtis - an excellent book suggestion! In regards to your message, it's an interesting read here: http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

[Karmadog]

Actually, a book that I am sure that you will find even more interesting given the content of body-flow would be Power vs Force -the hidden determinants of Human behaviour by David Hawkins.
In my view, if you were to read one book in your life...make it this one.