Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Conversation: Heinz Von Foerster and Moshe-Feldenkrais
A Conversation: Heinz Von Foerster and Moshe-Feldenkrais
This isatranscription of
a conversation between
l-leinz von Foerster, Pti.D. and
Moshe Feldenkrais, D. Sc.
that tool<place when
Dr. von Foerster was
invited toaddress the
San Francisco FPTPin
the summer of 1977. The
training program was in its
third year at the time of
this conversation. This
transcript was originally
compiled and edited
by Dennis Leri and
Lynn Sutherland.
A C O N V E R S A T I O N :
Heinz von Foerster
Heinz von Foerster & was born in Viennain
Moshe Feldenkrais 1911. He completed his
Ph.D. in Physics and after
1977 the Second World War
moved to the United States
with his family tojoin the
staff of the Department of
Electrical Engineering at
the University of Illinois in
Urbana. Dr. von Foerster is
considered one of the
founders of the field of
cybernetics and systemic
thinking. He isa construc-
tivist, cybernetician,
mathematician, physicist
andphilosopher who has
hada profound impact on
the scientific conception
M o s h e F e l d e n k r a i s : Do I see Prof. H e i n z v o n Foerster? W o u l d y o u of "objectivity." He
please come i n . By the way, here we have a distinguished guest w h o m collaborated over the
we welcome w i t h great pleasure. I have ha d a close relationship w i t h years inhis research
you for m a n y years. I a m a close fan of Wittgenstein. He has something with Margaret Mead,
to do v n t h y o u . Gregory Bateson,
Humberto Maturana,
H e i n z v o n Foerster: Do y o u k n o w him? Francisco Varela
M F : No, I a m n o t a personal friend of his. I k n o w h i m f r o m his books and Moshe's close
and I k n o w several people w h o w o r k e d v n t h h i m . W o u l d y o u m i n d friend Noa Eshkol.
watching us for a few seconds?[There is an A T M i n progress, Eds.] Ed.
Then we w i l l try to benefit f r o m your w i s d o m .
Do any of you m i n d while I take a few seconds to explain to Heinz
what we do? I don't w a n t h i m to be completely out of gear. We are near
the end of our training. Roughly speaking we t h i n k of the pelvis as ....
If you w a n t to improve, y o u must clear the g r o u n d u p o n w h i c h y o u
stand. I t means that w i t h the most elementary thing, y o u need a greater
intelligence and understanding t h a n for any complicated t h i n g y o u can
do. I f the basis is improved, t h e n your structure is safe, more pliable,
more flexible.
Here we are trying to improve the movement of the head. We give the
example that the pelvis has all the strong muscles of the body. I t has the
gluteal, the quadriceps and the abdominal muscles. A n y of the strong
muscles are i n the pelvis. Certainly y o u can say that any of the strong
movement w h i c h carries the body depends u p o n the pelvis. That means
it is the power station. This power station does not k n o w what to do.
The head, w h i c h has all the teleceptors .... A l l the things w h i c h con-
nect us to the outside w o r l d , the social environment, and to other peo-
ple m u st be done by t u r n i n g the head. Therefore, the way the head
moves and works a r o u n d the vertical, the way we talk, the way we move,
and the way we smile is a clear i n d i c a t i o n of the way we are w i r e d i n
f r o m c h i l d h o o d to now. A n y i m p r o v e m e n t i n that w i l l improve our abil-
ity to cope w i t h ourselves and the outside w o r l d . Between those t w o —
we liken the t h i n g to a submarine and a periscope. The power station,
the pelvis, is the submarine and the periscope, the head, w h i c h has a
l o n g connecting r o d , looks at the w o r l d , looks around, and tells the sta-
t i o n what to do and where to direct the power.
I f that scanning device gives false directions or distorts the t h i n g by
its o w n limitations, t h e n i t directs the pelvis to do things w h i c h he
doesn't know. There is a connecting r o d between the two. This means
the thorax and the spine. The spinal c h o r d and the musculature will be
organized to do futile sorts of things instead of doing the best for the
nervous system. So, there we are.
N o w we are d o i n g the m o v e m e n t of the head. We have said that
the organization of the heads i n this r o o m is a little b i t better t h a n the
average. I n fact, y o u can see....
I say we cannot do anything unless we k n o w what we do. I f we k n o w
what we do, we can do what we want. Before y o u can correct an error,
y o u must first k n o w the error. Otherwise, i f I find there is something
w r o n g w i t h me w h i c h I w a n t to correct, I make another error instead of
correcting the original one. Correcting an error is impossible. The com-
pulsion m u s t be eliminated so the error doesn't occur again. I t is n o t a
question of eliminatin g the error. I t is a question of learning. Relearning
a t h i n g i n order to make i t errorless. That is our j o b . By the way, that is a
lost cause.
[From the A T M ] : N o w we haven't broken any arms. A l l we have done
is pay a t t e n t i o n to what we are doing. We k n o w w h a t we are doing. The
change this produces i n the nervous system makes y o u learn i n a way
w h i c h is the only learning. That means discover, w i t h i n the things y o u
are familiar w i t h , reactions w h i c h y o u d i d n o t k n o w were included. I t is
like discovering y o u can describe a circle aroun d a triangle. That is dis-
covery. That is the only way of t h i n k i n g that i n what we do, there is sud-
denly a new element, new insight, new ability to do. So y o u can learn by
i m p r o v i n g a m i n o r insignificant t h i n g i n your life. By doing that, our
b r a i n works better and organizes itself better.
Do y o u k n o w w h y i t organizes itself better? I n our intentional cor-
tex, there are w i r e d - i n inhibition s and overexcitations. There are pat-
terns w h i c h become fixed b y habits of thought, habits of organization,
habits of actions. These elements are n o t free to make any change or
any reorganization. That means the t h i n k i n g is l i m i t e d . Our ability to
do is l i m i t e d .
WINTER 1993 THE FELDENKRAIS JOURNAL NO. 8
f r o m scientific insights gained over the last couple of years. They all
converge to a Feldenkraisian philosophy w h i c h y o u are all extraordinar-
ily familiar v n t h — n o t only familiar w i t h , b u t experiencing i t an d also
doing it. This is one of the essential features w i t h w h i c h I can give y o u
a brief report. Essentially what I am telling you, y o u all know. The only
t h i n g w h i c h may be different is the way I say it. It w i l l only be the f o r m
and not the content w h i c h ma y be different. I t may be another way of
looking at the thing.
Before I go on, m a k i n g a reinforcement of some of the Feldenkraisian
thoughts or experiences y o u ma y have had, let me give y o u one or two
reinforcing remarks about the movie y o u have just seen. [A movie o n
the b r a i n had been shown.] One t h i n g w h i c h I t h i n k is significant,
w h i c h may n o t be perceived w i t h full significance, is the absence of
comments. I t is the absence of something w h i c h I t h i n k is important.
It is the absence of references. I t is the absence of certain functions
w h i c h are usually associated w i t h certain structures of the brain. Do y o u
remember, we saw extraordinarily interesting anatomical structures of
the b r a i n with m a n y of the identifiable substructures. I n almost no case
d i d the speaker say, "Ladies and gentlemen, here is the seat of this and
seat of that. Here y o u see, and here y o u hear. Here y o u do that." He had
only one lapse into that style of speech. That was w h e n he identified a
particular structure as the seat of feelings and emotions. I am not n a m -
ing that structure, because otherwise y o u w i l l once again connect it.
The concept of identifying certain structures w i t h certain functions
is an o l d game. I t h i n k i t was invented by a German phrenologist d u r i n g
the late eighteen hundreds. He identified certain h u m p s and bumps o n
the skull w i t h certain functions. I recall distinctly that he called these
particular lumps and b u m p s over here references for extraordinary skill
i n mathematics. Another example is a particular knob o n the brain
w h i c h indicated your propensity to have love for children. I first heard
about phrenology i n h i g h school. I n h i g h school, we had only one girl.
W h e n we heard the love of children was sitting here, everyone was try-
ing to feel, o n her head, the b u m p . She d i d n o t have any b u m p at all. We
thought there must be something foul about this phrenology concept.
I w o u l d like to add one p o i n t about this association of function and
structure. I t is an artifice. It is an invention. I t is an interpretation w h i c h
is n o t warranted. I t is usually made because i f y o u remove a particular
structure, t h e n a certain f u n c t i o n w i l l n o t appear. Therefore, i f this cer-
tain f u n c t i o n has n o t been handled by that i n d i v i d u a l w h o has lost a
specific structure i n the brain, t h en it is usually associated v n t h this
structure that has been lost.
M F : Let me add one little thing. Sometimes w h e n y o u take off a struc-
ture and something disappears, there is something else w h i c h appears
because that structure was removed.
H V F : Exactly. Because a certain structure has been removed, the whole
system is different. The p o i n t that y o u have changed i t is that this par-
ticular place removed something. One of the most beautiful arguments
against this association between structure and f u n c t i o n was given by a
neurophysiologist w h o died w h e n he was very young. He p o i n t e d out
that this was nonsense. I t is quite obvious h o w w r o n g this is because
20
WINTER 1993 T H E FELDENKRAIS JOURNAL NO. 8
21
THE FELDENKRAIS JOURNAL NO. 8 WINTER 1993
22
The n o t i o n of object constancy is n o t a trivial one. Moreover, if y o u
really come to t h i n k of it, y o u w i l l recognize that if y o u try to grasp....
See the Feldenkraisian notion? You must have a m o t o r action i n order
to understand, to grasp. Everyone can recognize this ball p o i n t pen. I f
y o u look at this, y o u k n o w it is always this way.
Consider the foUovnng thing. The way y o u see this p e n is the
way you have never seen before. M y statement, "that
you have never seen that before," is a statement
that the projection of this pen onto your retina, i n
this particular position I a m holding it, vrith this
particular color scheme, w i t h this particular sil-
ver knob, etc.—all these particular things, sitting
o n your retina—has never h i t your retina
before. The probability that it ever d i d is
absolutely so small, it may be eons before i t
w o u l d ever recur. Yet, even though y o u have
never seen it before, i f I were to show y o u this pen, y o u
may think, "Oh, he has one of those pens."
Ladies and gentlemen, this t h i n g here y o u call, being a constant
object, a pen. Yet, y o u never see i t to be the same. Again, i n order to
extend Poincare's observation, y o u w o u l d never realize i t is the same
thing if y o u were not allowed to handle it, to manipulate it, to w o r k w i t h
it, to get a m o t or reeducation of it.
When y o u look i n a mirror, your left is o n the right and your right is
on the left. I n front of me, the left and the right have changed. We are
always used to talking to others—^we are used to seeing the right o n m y
personal left as we talk directly to another. So, I look i n the m i r r o r and
see myself as someone else. I find m y right and left have changed. Some
people t h i n k i t is the mirror . I tell t h e m i t is all right. W h y do y o u still
have your head up and the legs down? W h y d i d n ' t y o u invert that also?
Or maybe lie d o w n and have a look. I n the lying position, the arms
should n o t change because obviously the head and the legs do n o t
change. Obviously, this inconsistency is n o t i n the m i r r o r . I t shows us
h o w we are w i r e d in. We are w i r e d i n to see right and left. I t is like we
are a computer w i t h one card, and we can't take i t out.
Another t h i ng w h i c h is most i m p o r t a n t is the sensory and m o t o r
together. I say that the object, the type of t h i n g y o u said we learn, the
constancy of the shape.... For example, i f I look at a box of cigarettes, i t
does not Ibecome smaller if I move i t further or nearer. I t keeps its shape
and I recognize it. That has n o t h i n g to do w i t h the eyes and what I see. I t
has to do w i t h m y habitual interpretation of the hand—sensory appreci-
ation of the space, f o r m and size. Obviously, m y eyes see an object get-
ting smaller and smaller. Yet, I k n o w that a cigarette lying there w i t h an
object I don't know, enables me to adjust the size of the u n k n o w n box.
If I w o u l d try to find out about those things I cannot reach w i t h m y
hands, I w o u l d n ot be able to m a i n t a i n the constancy of the shape or the
form. Now, I find y o u can never t o u c h the m o o n or the sun. Therefore,
m y o p i n i o n of the size of the sun depends u p o n h o w h i g h the sun is. I
believe that if we could take the m o o n i n our hands, we w o u l d t h i n k i t
was the same size regardless of h o w h i g h i n the sky it was.
It shows you that if you find the constancy.... Actually, I believe that
consciousness, the real object of consciousness—^we say states of con-
sciousness, w h i c h means that our present consciousness is only one of
many other states. The one that we maintain is the one w h i c h maintains
constancy of shapes and f o r m by those things w h i c h we can touch. That
is one of the major objects of consciousness. I t is maintaining the con-
stancy of shape and f o r m so we can live i n this w o r l d w i t h a changing,
moving body, moving ears, movin g eyes, etc. This is one of the modalities
of consciousness. That is good enough. We have talked about i t for years.
It is only nice to hear that some people have a way of looking at i t that
is so extraordinary. I t o l d y o u [the students] about that. While we were
talking and teaching it, I t o l d y o u there are at least another h u n d r e d
people investigating this f r o m another angle. They have the same sort of
insight. When a culture evolves and something is new, it is impossible
that h u m a n brains are so different f r o m one another (even thoug h the
brains are different), that i m p o r t a n t developments do n o t occur i n ten,
hundred, thousand places at this m o m e n t .
H V F : I w o u l d like to add a few points to your details. The concept of
a closure, a sensory m o t o r closure.... That means the interpretation '
w h i c h I just gave, or y o u just c o m m e n t e d u p o n , where y o u are really
training people to become aware of their o v m activities and allow clo-
sure to take place, is significant. I t is more significant t h a n i t appears
on the surface.
The significance I t h i n k i t has, or at least some ethologists w h o are
Jnvestigating the question of closure think, is the question of regaining
27
THE FELDENKRAIS JOURNAL NO. 8 WINTER 1993
28
the observer, the m a n w h o conducts the experiment, w h o makes sense
between the needles and the t h i n g he observes. I said this i n 1946.
Do y o u k n o w Uri? They f o u n d the atomic p o i n t of hydrogen was
determined by many p r o m i n e n t physicists i n the w o r l d . They f o u n d
more and more figures after the p o i n t to be correct. By the t i m e they
determined the t h i r d figure, y o u f i n d that m a n y p r o m i n e n t scientists,
first-rate people, d i d not agree o n the figure.
One of t h e m decided that he w o u l d repeat all the four experiments by
prominent people that don't agree after the t h i r d figure. I w i l l see. They
put t h e m into rates so y o u can count t h e m . At that time, there weren't
geiger counters for counting. A l l the c o u n t i n g was done w i t h their eyes.
Obviously, y o u need to b l i n k occasionally. So, y o u miss oscillations. You
write i n your book. If y o u w a n t to get precision to the t h i r d or f o u r t h
figure, y o u cannot miss one or tw o oscillations every t e n seconds.
He trained himself to look at the experiments like this. Actually, I
too, have learned to do it. [Moshe mimes a n d makes f u n n y c o u n t i n g
sounds.] I look like this so I never look closer. This way I can count all
those scintillations o n this. Then, he redid i t again. Eventually, he f o u n d
that the t h i r d figures and the fourth figures were correct.
At that point, U r i decided there must be a m i x t u r e of hydrogen w h e n
the fourth figure, w i t h this correction, d i d n o t work. There must be a
mixture of the two. This is h o w they f o u n d hydrogen. So, w i t h o u t
observers we w o u l d n o t have an atomic b o m b . H i r o s h i m a w o u l d still
be there. That is extraordinary.
M F : Thanks for coming. It was a very great honor. I hope we can meet
again.
Can y o u see that some of things we have learned, he touched upon?
We had i t m u c h more profoundly. It is n o t that y o u had actually
learned. I t o l d y o u that y o u were n o w capable of seeing things i n a
way w h i c h many other people, w h o b y general consent have a higher
academic standard t h a n you, cannot match. Even those w h o partially
understood.... I t is superior to any other t h i n k i n g y o u can
find around yourself. I t is the type of t h i n k i n g that
Pribram said, w i t h i n twenty-five years, every university
w i l l teach it. A l l those things w h i c h we call "being w i r e d
i n , " what we thought, or what our parents thought.
H o w many times have I t o l d y o u that this generation is a cru-
cial one. The next generation, or maybe at the end of this one,
what we thought, or what our parents thought, or what the
majority of people outside think, w i l l be considered as back-
w a r d as the M i d d l e Ages. There w i l l be an extraordinary change. There
w i l l be a crossing of so many disciplines. There w i l l be people w h o can
see the w o r l d and not a collection of silly freaks. F r o m that p o i n t of
view, the religious people are more intelligent t h a n scientists. They
don't k n o w somethirig, so they say there was someone w h o made it.
That is that! God is there and y o u d o n ' t k n o w h i m . They don't say they
know h i m . They never caught h i m b y his beard. He has done it, he
THE FELDENKRAIS JOURNAL NO. 8 WINTER 1993
knows what he knows. He knows the past and the future. They do not
argue w i t h h i m .
O n the other hand, i f y o u were to take a physicist w h o considers the
w o r l d — h e may say this is all atoms and electrons. W h i c h is correct. A l l
the w o r l d is m o t i o n . I f y o u stop his w o r l d , he has two blinkers o n his
eyes. W h e n y o u ask h i m , "Who are you, w h o observes the w o r l d of sci-
ence and atoms?" He vdll tell y o u that this question has n o t h i n g to do
w i t h physics. If y o u ask h i m i f his physics deals w i t h architecture, he w i l l
answer that only the architecture of the atoms has to do w i t h physics,
all the other architecture has n o t h i n g to do w i t h physics. Unless he
is a h u m a n being, o n t o p of being a physicist, he w o n ' t k n o w anything
about w o r l d architecture. Otherwise, his physics starts w i t h atoms and
finishes w i t h atoms. I t starts that he doesn't see anything else aroun d
h i m . Law isn't of any importance. Archeology isn't of any importance.
The h u m a n observer doesn't have any importance. I t is the phenomena
that has importance. Is that a way?
What sort of w o r l d is that? A n y t h i n g w h i c h exists for the rest of
h u m a n i t y isn't any concern of his study at all. He looks at the p h e n o m-
ena and wants to k n o w the w o r l d t h r o u g h that. Surely that is asking you
to k n o w y o u r s e l f b y your tail. I f y o u k n o w the tail, t h e n y o u k n o w the
person. Is that the idea?
F r o m this p o i n t of view, the scientist has less ground to stand o n t h a n
any religious stance. At least the religious person admits he doesn't
k n o w a thing. He may believe i n it. That is okay.
But, w h e n someone claims to introduce science and m e t h o d while
eliminating seventy-five to ninety-five percent of the w o r l d , except the
structure h o l d i n g atoms together—he missed the w o r l d . Some of
the great physicists have seen this long ago. They tried to teach the
other students that this is n o t the only way of looking at life.
You can see the same t h i n g i n other sciences. Usually, they all have
separate facilities, separate cliques. Everyone believes separately. This
is m o d e r n schizophrenia. I t is d i v i d i n g a h u m a n being into several com-
partments, w i t h each one being watertight to the other. I believe a new
era is c o m i n g about. Right now, there are so m a n y physicists w h o are
studying gymnastics. Margaret Mead had the idea of saying that. There
are biologists w h o do physics. There are physicists w/ho h o are
interested i n different states of consciousness. A l l these ese A
things mean y o u are becomin g h u m a n again.
I t h i n k this is the beginning of a new era. I t
means people w i l l learn as they used to learn i n
Cambridge and Oxford. Centuries ago, they learned
natural science. This contained astronomy, litera-
ture and philosophy. What was the name of it?
There was divinity. I d o n 't remember the exact t e r m
they used. I t contained all the physical and
mathematical sciences of the w o r l d . I t was the
study of the science of nature.
Thank y o u very m u c h .
30