Re: The Leather Man
David, I believe that Dan has got some cool stuff going on, and I'd still like to fly down there and learn it and see it. I have no idea how many puzzles pieces I have, just that I recently had a fantastic opportunity to learn some stuff that was *vastly* overwhelming to me despite the relative mundaneness of it, and perhaps especially because of the mundaneness of it (simultaneously "Oh, DUH!" and "You can do that with this!?"); so to peg it on one construct seems dismissive. But here we're picking one piece of paper out of a hat, and saying, "Yep, that's what it is! Just these fascia here."
What if there are a dizzying confluence of factors involved in making it happen, such that if one were actually to redesign a new system of training from the ground up based on merely the premise of active fascia, it would never achieve the intent of the original?
So if you can define the system with reference to the outcome (and not in a way that can shed doubt), and efficiently achieving that outcome, would that not be better? And what of the outcome? If you don't have a very sharp answer about what the outcome really is, regardless of how you define the system, how do you know you ever got there? That is what I mean by "self-evident".
Last edited by Lee Salzman : 07-31-2007 at 05:04 PM.