On first impression, this article ap peared to be an interesting, if longish, satire. But while the Jeff Maitland I’ve known is very bright and an earnest seeker, one notion I have not associated with him is a wacky sense of humor. As I read the piece again, three primary concerns surfaced:

1. While Jeff refers several times to integration and to using the laser to “enhance” his Rolfing work, his frequent use of quasimedico-scientific language appears more oriented to diagnosis, treatment and relief of symptoms. This seems sharply in conflict with the established holistic ground of Rolfing.

2. The concept of “midline” as it is used in the article is not clear to me. Nor am I ready to accept Jeff’s dismissal of the usefulness of the concept of gravity based on his assumptions regarding Ida’s thinking.

3. Even if it is eventually documented that this machine helps ease pain, at what point does any treatment deviate so much from Rolfing principles that it simply should not be called Rolfing?

As uncomfortable as I am with Jeff’s enthusiasm about this machine, however cool a toy it may be, I am not willing to dismiss his claims out of hand. There are bright, creative people in the Rolf Institute’ who have been willing to share their excitement about a discovery they felt would benefit all of us. We’ve been offered such ideas as:

.Using a wooden stick on clients to save our hands;

.Building a frame over the Rolfing table to allow use of bare feet to be more effective and save our hands;

.Using stocking feet (without frame) to be more effective; and

.Rolfing clients from across the room (and possibly across town) without physically touching them.

These, too, sound wacky – unless they can be proven real and taught to others. For example, the late Byron Gentry, D.C. (whom Ida trained in – I think – the 1950’s) amazed people for years by diagnosing and treating conditions not only in his clinic, but also over the phone, usually with excellent results. He was able to teach others to duplicate at least some of his results.

Lots of us are fascinated by, and have experimented with, exotic ideas and devices. In all fairness to our founder, I believe it’s important to prove to our peers that not only is any proposed innovation practical and effective, but also that it will not damage Rolfing’s reputation. To follow clients around while shining lasers on them departs so sharply from established Rolfing that it appears to disregard our standards of practice, unless the practitioner clearly and explicitly declares it to be separate from normal Rolfing practice.

For me, Jeff’s article raises some additional provocative questions:

1. How do we, as individuals, deal with the archetype of the Healer? Thanks to the power of Ida’s basic principles, our work is often so effective that our clients project on us far more healing power than we actually possess. It is therefore necessary – continually – to deal with the tendency to become inflated, i.e. to believe we really are great healers, which is not only illusory but also dangerous. This can lead to a second pitfall, that of being seduced by symptoms.

2. How do we balance Rolfing’s essential holism with the client’s (and our) need to be “fixed”? It is certainly proper to respond to symptoms with compassion, so that the client knows s/he has been heard, as well as evaluating them as clues to system problems. But there is often a tendency to imitate other treatment models and be ever more symptom-oriented. After all, our clients are trained that way and expect it. So here, too, we must continually monitor our need to “heal” and instead make known to the client the exciting, if challenging, possibilities of self-healing (with Rolfing support as appropriate). It’s worth noting that Ida once said, “Look, if you’re interested in pathology and symptoms, leave here and go to medical school; that’s what they’re good at. We’re after much larger game: creating a whole different potential for human existence.”

I know that many Rolfers scoff at that, saying that people come to be fixed, gotten out of pain, and the old party line is unrealistic. I strongly disagree. Not only is the context of holism far more interesting than fixing, but in the long term it also establishes responsibility and power where they belong – in the client. It is, in essence, more respectful. If that sounds too feeble to attract clients, I can offer only the empirical evidence of my own practice as a sample. For about 28 years I have been as busy as I can handle, averaging 30 sessions a week.

3. Is it possible to confuse healing intention and healing tools? Could a Rolfer be just as effective with sight, touch and intention as with a laser? As much as I love toys, I wonder if it’s even possible that fascination with a high-tech mechanism could short-circuit the challenge – and one’s latent abilities – to be as effective without the device. A number of Rolfers bought “Tesla Coil” wristwatches advertised as protecting their owners by generating a field strong enough to neutralize the harmful effects of electromagnetic pollution. Clever merchandising idea these days, but a nonessential expense if one knows that Nikola Tesla said the same thing could be accomplished by meditating. Biologist Lyall Watson wrote of modern discoveries in biology and physics which could “explain” the healings he witnessed in the Indonesian Archipelago involving native shamans. Of course, the shamans had never studied biology or physics, and might not even have known they existed.

Can one be both scientific and shamanic? Is such a balance possible? Albert Einstein seemed to think so: “Intuition is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is its faithful servant. We have, however, created a society that worships the servant, and has forgotten the gift.” Surely balance in both functions is the point.

I appreciate Jeff sharing his enthusiasm for the laser, if only to press us to confront some important issues in Rolfing. Questioning and uncertainty are an important part of Rolfing’s native territory and will probably remain so. My personal sense is that we are so engulfed, generally without awareness, in a rational, cause and effect paradigm that we often don’t see how incomplete it is. If we allow ourselves to be so fascinated by technology that we lose touch with the possibilities that need time and messy, uncertain wanderings to come to fulfillment, what might we forfeit? Not all learning is amenable to logic and reason. Even Einstein, when asked how he thought up his relativity theory is reported to have replied, “Think it up? I didn’t think it up. It came to me as though in a dream.”