I trained at the Rolf Institute® shortly after the publication of Ron Kirkby’s (1975) article discussing the idea that tensegrity can provide a sensible explanation for how changes in the fascial web exert a broad influence throughout the structure of the human body and a justification for calling our manipulative strategies ‘structural integration’. For a short time after that I became a model builder, creating a modest collection of tensegrity spheres, prisms, and towers. My interest was rekindled on reading Sjaza Gottlieb’s (2015) article in this journal, “Biotensegrity: Paradigm Shift” that reviewed Graham Scarr’s (2014) seminal work, Biotensegrity: The Structural Basis of Life. Since I already had experience working with string and dowels, I began to wonder about using curved struts instead of dowels in their construction.

Playing with Models Let’s start with Figure 1.

Figure 1: Tensegrity models.

This is a picture of the tensegrity models that reside in my office. The two wood and thread models are thirty-year-old structures that represent my introduction to tensegrity. The arced plastic and string models are less than three months old, inspired by my reading of Scarr’s book.

As I read the book and looked at the figures, I realized that looking at two-dimensional representations did not really help me understand the three-dimensional reality of these models. Having already lived with models containing linear compression components (struts), I set out to construct models using arced struts. The first thing I learned was that these curved models are much harder to make and stabilize. Maybe if I were a fly fisherman who made his own gnats and flies, I would have a workshop geared to the project, but not so. As I became more skilled, I found that making a functional tensegrity sphere required struts with an arc between 120° and 1°. Arced struts larger than 120° cause the struts to touch each other on minor compression, thus eliminating the model from the tensegrity definition and reducing the model to a mixed-breed tensegrity/ stacked-block contraption.

The spherical model (second from the top) was made from struts with a 120° arc. Continuing my exploration, I found I could make an ‘inverted’ sphere with the convex surface facing toward the center of the sphere. Hence the top (not really spherical) model. In order for this ‘inverted’ model to function as a tensegrity object, the arc of the struts had to be less than 60° to avoid contact between the struts. In simple terms: for a normal tensegrity sphere, the compression arcs (struts) must be more than a 120° arc of a circle. Larger than that range the struts will contact each other, negating tensegrity. On the other end of this model, an inverted tensegrity sphere must have struts greater than -60° degree arc (i.e. between 0° and -60°), obviously closer to a straight strut than the previous model. Within this range the models demonstrate two important characteristics of tensegrity structures: dissipation of stress throughout the integrated structure and nonlinear adaption of the overall structure to distribute those stresses. I don’t have any great insights about this, but I did notice that as I was making the inverted sphere, up to a point of 75% completion the inverted sphere could revert to a normal sphere. This may imply that in physiological structures this back-and-forth play between the two forms can continue up until final closure prohibits such exchanges. Figure 2 shows the arcs that I am discussing.

My interest in creating these models was inspired by Kirkby’s article using the application of tensegrity to biological structures. I quickly noticed, however, my tendency to build more complex structures, ultimately making the larger dowel/thread model in Figure 1 (ten dowels, forty strings, two reversing layers), essentially drawing my attention toward solid geometry and away from organic structures.1 There is a message here. In order to create these geometrical shapes, the relationships represented in the model become more bound by the mathematics of geometry and less like the relationships in living tissue (nonlinearity). I believe that this holds true for both tensegrity and fractal math. In living matter there exists a random variability that interferes with higher levels of continuity and orderliness, making these models less applicable. So while the larger, more complex dowel-and-string models are attractive and engaging, they draw our attention away from living organic forms.

I encourage anyone reading this to try to construct these models as that is far more instructive than simply reading some text or looking at two-dimensional photos or drawings. Remember that this is basically the study of solid geometry and not physiology.

Figure 2: Different degrees of arc in a tensegrity sphere.

Biology and Tensegrity

Two major characteristics of tensegrity models are how they retain shape and maintain tone under a wide range of external strains. First, if you compress a tensegrity sphere, it begins to resist compression while at the same time expanding slightly in all three dimensions without contact between adjacent struts until its limits are reached. Second, if you begin expanding the structure, it resists as a whole, reshaping also in three dimensions until its limits are reached. Both compression and expansion demonstrate how these spheres disperse strain throughout the structure without concentrating it on any single area. Third and fourth, if you twist and bend tensegrity tubes (bi-helical structures), they retain and expand their inner dimension and they resist crimping and folding (Scarr 2014, 53- 54). From these four observations it is easy to draw conclusions as to the source of the durability and resilience of cells and tissues, surviving forces that might be expected to destroy them. It is important to note that the responsiveness and resilience of the whole structure is retained up to the limits but gives little information about fracture or collapse during failure.

The tensegrity model allows the macro and micro worlds to integrate. Collections of micro tensegrity units can be grouped into a hierarchical macro structure that retains the functionality of tensegrity.2 This allows us to talk about integration over a hierarchical size that covers many powers of ten, and we can relate the behavior of the macrostructure (bone, fascia, muscle) to that of the micro-structure (cells, tubules, extracellular matter). That is pretty exciting.

Working with Biotensegrity

After reading Scarr’s book, I began to reconsider my way of working, taking into consideration that the macro structures of the body are built on a hierarchy of micro structural biotensegrity elements and are still governed by the mechanics of tensegrity. Just thinking this way has changed my focus and awareness regarding session design. (Remember Korzybski: “What you think governs what you see and what you ignore.”3 ) I don’t think this has been a global change in my thinking or perception, but it has influenced how I think about flexion, extension, muscular pull, tendons, aponeuroses, and how stress and strain are distributed throughout the body. It has caused me to think about the source of the fluidity and resilience that I perceive.

The likelihood that elements not directly related to the structure under strain will have a significant impact on the greater structure now requires more consideration. The three-dimensionality under my hands is now perceived as more complex. Stretching, molding, compression and expansion, as well as indirect manipulation and unwinding, require a much broader perspective taking into account the slow accommodation of membranes and fascial sheaths from distant locations. This, then, requires a new perspective on the timing between sessions.

Before moving on I want to express some of my hesitation regarding biotensegrity. In a living organism there are no straight lines, nor are there tightly wired cables. Anything that might be considered a strut is irregular in shape and slightly flexible. Instead of cables there are wide sheets of connective tissue, often with semi-rigid tissues imbedded within (more like a drum head than a cable). The whole structure is managed by muscle tissue, ligaments, and tendons. The structures, while orderly, are often crisscrossed with fascial planes that serve to tie the whole of the volume together and act as support for the general shape. So, at best, we can use the tensegrity model as a concept, not a fact. It is important to remember that this topic is highly abstract and thus has the risk of confusing our awareness and perception of touch and take us away from the ‘silent level’ of awareness (again Korzybski; more below). It is also human nature to fall in love with the models and concepts that we create and to make every effort to alter our perception of reality to fit our theories. However, if we approach our physical contact with this in mind, the volume may begin to feel like a complex, integrated organism, and we can treat it accordingly without being locked into the tensegrity model. Having said all that, I have lived with these models for thirty-five years, and I still use them to explain the relationship between tensegrity and structural integration.

Biotensegrity and the Cranium

If the cranium is considered a biotensegrity sphere (Scarr 2014, Ch. 8), it is no longer adequate or appropriate to just consider strains as localized along sutural lines and junctions (lesions). The dura must be considered a tensional element of the skull that functions to retain the form and fluidity of the whole. This is just another way of saying that the three-dimensional shape, fluidity, and resilience of the cranium is governed as a whole by the dynamic interplay of dura, tentorium, falx, bone, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and brain. Injuries and lesions still exist and will still be responsible for distortions and restricted movement, but this new perspective expands the scope of treatment and adjustment. The overall motion of the elements of the cranium as well as the responsiveness and fluidity of the tissues must be considered in evaluating the health of the system. Strains can reside within the borders of the bones or within the volume of the brain itself (Upledger and Vredevoogt 1983, 295). These strains can be maintained by the tension created by the complex relationships among the dura, falx, and tentorium (Upledger 1990, Ch. 2 and 3). The density of the tissues of the brain is now to be considered a functional part of the cranial vault.

Following up on my considerations at the end of the previous section, it is important when working with the cranium to approach the process as three dimensional, not just working on the two-dimensional surface of a sphere as is the case when working with sutural lesions.

Implications for Structural Integration

As I was writing this I remembered some of the paradoxes in the writings of Dr. Rolf that we were challenged by during our training

Gravity Is the Therapist – The Skyhook

As gravity compresses the biotensegrity tower of our spinal structure, the column first contracts but then expands in all directions, one of which creates lift. Similarly, the pull of any muscle on the spine activates a complex expansion of the whole column. I would now suggest: biology and evolution are the architects; gravity is the therapist; and we no longer require an imaginary skyhook attached to our head to keep us upright. As long as the membranes remain competent, the spine retains fluidity of movement and a wide range of responsiveness, which then feels like floating and lift.

Contraction of the Psoas Extends the Spine

We were challenged to explain the statement “when the psoas contracts, the spine lengthens.” Building on the model for lift under the force of gravity, we can consider the spine a helical tube that retains its inner dimension while flexing or rotating. In order not to crimp under flexion, the spine must lift and extend. Only when the relationships among the supporting structures begin to fail do we see collapse onto the disks with subsequent pathologies.

Interplay Between Flexors and Extensors

Similarly, movement of the joints is much more complex than coordination between flexion and extension (Scarr 2014, 60, 63-68). Joints may be considered to be biotensegrity spheres integrated with biotensegrity towers. Movement is the interplay among supports, tension, and action. Looking through this lens at the elbow, knee, hip, or shoulder, you can see that the movement of the joints requires much more complexity than a simple pull/ release model to maintain the space and fluidity within the joint capsule. This helps explain what Rolf called ‘lift’ and we now call ‘palintonicity’ in relation to the space between the eleventh and twelfth ribs and the pelvic ilia.

The Little Boy Logo

The Little Boy Logo has always brought to mind the ordering of the body presented in Reichian therapy, where each of the tension bands might represent a transition between adjacent tensegrity spheres. Structural integration has presented these bands as horizontal planes that separate different visceral spaces. I think we can also interpret these horizontals as the space where one biotensegrity sphere relates to the adjacent one without necessarily integrating. These breaks in pattern offer the possibility of distortion and collapse without complete disruption of the biological form. It also offers reintegration by establishing congruent relationships between the adjacent segments.

Levels of Abstraction and the Silent Level

The ‘silent level’ of our work represents the level of direct experience below the levels of abstraction and naming (Feitis 1979, 45-47).4 This level was strongly emphasized in early trainings. It is the level that is compromised when we think we know everything there is to know about structure and living processes and we use language to define our protocol process. In other words, our language pulls us away from our direct experience. The silent level is the level associated with deep meditation and the consequent awareness that emerges.

“Compound Essence of Time”

In a discussion with an osteopath about how Rolfing® SI doesn’t seem to affect everyone equally, he pointed out that Rolfing SI was missing some concept of time; i.e., how long it takes for a session to have an impact. (Feitis 1979, 48).] Thinking in terms of a tensegrity model, we can consider the widespread interactions among fascial membranes and layers and the adaptations that occur as the layers shift. It makes sense that this is a process that is dependent on the fluidity and resilience of the membranous layers.

Conclusion

In summary, tensegrity is a theory that fits into a relational (nonlinear) model of biological structure (hence biotensegrity) that keeps us thinking about how the human structure has evolved as a response to the vertical line of gravity. The three dimensional aspects of the structure add enough complexity to require additional thought to the original model of a tensegrity sphere to explain our work.

Michael Maskornick, Certified Advanced Rolfer, was introduced to Rolfing SI in 1974 by Leland Johnson and Jan Sultan. One of the first practitioners who never met Dr. Rolf, Michael trained in 1978 , moved to Bellingham, Washington, set up his low-key practice, and has worked and lived in the Pacific Northwest ever since.

Endnotes

1. You can see here the flattening of the two-dimensional picture, minimizing the fluid dynamics and vitality of the threedimensional sphere. It also limits your ability to see the complexity of the volume defined by the sphere.

2. The ‘Little Boy Logo’ is an example where each block is considered as a unit that then integrates onto the body as a whole, each exhibiting some level of integration.

3. Do a web search on Korzybski or general semantics for a sense of this complex theory, especially hierarchical levels of abstraction.

4. This level is associated with the first level (and subsequently the fifth level) of abstraction in Rolf’s discussion of Abelard. Rolf’s scheme of these five levels is: 1. Sensing, 2. Classifying, 3. Relating, 4. Postulating, and 5. Unifying.

Bibliography

Feitis, R., ed. 1979. Ida Rolf Talks About Rolfing and Physical Reality. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Gottlieb, S. 2015 July. “Biotensegrity: Paradigm Shift.” Structural Integration: The Journal of the Rolf Institute® 43(2):66-68.

Kirkby, R. 1975 Oct. “The Probable Reality Behind Structural Integration.” The Bulletin of Structural Integration 5(1):5-15. Available at https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/cgi-bin/cont_ ipr.cgi?cmd=show1artigo&ling=eng& id=151.

Scarr, G. 2014. Biotensegrity: The Structural Basis of Life. Pencaitland, Scotland: Handspring Publishing Ltd.

Upledger, J.E. and J.D. Vredevoogt 1983. Craniosacral Therapy. Seattle, WA: Eastland Press.

Upledger, J.E. 1990. Somatoemotional Release and Beyond. Palm Beach Gardens, FL: Upledger Institute Press.Musings on Tensegrity and Biotensegrity[:]