[Tango-L] Technical vs Sensual - Where are the Engineers from?

[Gary Barnes]

On 12/05/2006, at 6:36 AM, Trini apparently wrote:

> ...  In
> other words, without language, could one successfully
> analyze something regardless of how one's learning
> process?
>

I do not have the research.

However, I think you are perhaps reducing all teaching to the teaching 
of analysis - even though I do not think this is actually what you do 
in your classes, from what you have said.

People do not necessarily need to analyse in order to learn. Analysis 
is one possible learning process, and the language of analysis is one 
possible language through which to express what is being taught, and 
what is being learned.

 From my observation, many people (not usually me btw!) learn best from 
imagery - it has exactly the desired effect, of them embodying a 
particular kind of movement.  This is why many teachers have such a 
rich vocabulary of imagery, to get across the bodily ideas to a wide 
range of people.

These students do not learn to 'analyse'  the movement.  They cannot 
explain, in terms of physics or anything else, 'how' it works.

Nevertheless, their _body_  knows how it works (well, actually their 
subconscious kinesthetic mind knows) , which is all we need!

Analysis is just one of many tools for achieving that state of bodily 
knowledge.

OTOH, words of imagery can also be 'filed away for future reference', 
and can suddenly become useful years later.

This whole argument seems to be a typical one of people vigorously 
defending what works for them as being the only or best way, when there 
are many paths, and possibly even many destinations...

my 2.2 c (taxes included)

Gary