I noticed in your recent Alexander Technique response that you seem to show an aversion towards creating methods and “techniques,” I understand this, because I am just like you. I’m not sure how to formulate the question, but do you find that sometimes we can be a little too anti-method and anti-technique? I believe I perfectly understand the reasons for this aversion (for lack of a better word) I know how easily an effect-consciousness can arise out of doing this (as opposed to the natural cause-consciousness) — basically I know it’s easy to become deluded when one has labeled the truth.

But there is value to packaging truth too, don’t you think? In the sense that it gives you an organized context to work with. This can be good for those who are inclined to these sorts of things, don’t you think? Obviously, I know the negative potentials in the creation of these systems too.

Since you are interested in this type of thing I’ll tell you that I have been strongly influenced by the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. The main point of his teaching was presented by him in his statement “Truth is a Pathless Land”. Regarding your question, I have learned to avoid methods because the truth is always simpler. The truth provides its own method if we see it. We don’t need another. If you “package” it, as you ask, then it is no longer the truth. The truth is alive and we can only package something that is not living. Living things grow and develop and morph. That is how it continues to be true. It changes but it continues to be what actually is. But something packaged is limited by that package so it can’t keep up with the unfolding of life.

A similar conundrum is the concept of perfection. I once witnessed an online discussion where one person stated that a particular singer had perfect technique. Another person responded that it was impossible because they were human, so they had to have made a mistake at some point in their career. This is a typical example of how the concept of perfection tends to be viewed. I think when applied to a singer, or any living thing, perfection can mean simply to be just as they are meant to be. Which in my mind can include momentary imperfections. This can be a hard concept to hold in the mind. How can something imperfect be perfect at the same time? Well, if they are behaving completely in line with natural laws of functional behavior then that would be perfect to me. It doesn’t need to mean having no blemishes or whatever the common belief of what is perfect.

In this context the attempt to be perfect would actually make perfect function impossible. Because the attempt to make a perfect tone would cause a disturbance in the natural reactions of the body. This interference causes the body to no longer be a living musical instrument. It is this relationship that is the basis for why I encourage people to not be concerned with how they sound and learn to trust that if they function correctly the sound will be what they want. But the attempt to make the sound they want will always fail.

But there is a limitation with talking, writing and reading about this. We can only refer to the truth through these forms of communication, not experience it. The actual thing can only be experienced by the individual. But the individual will never know to look if someone doesn’t talk about it. So that is why I go ahead and put it out there anyway.