Archive for It's About The Horse The Free Forum for those Doing Parelli - and a whole lot More! "Anything forced and misunderstood can never be beautiful." Xenophon (430-355 B.C.),
|
Thunder Hollow
|
...
|
fairhavenranch
|
"Natural Horsemanship": A highly over used phrase designed to market DVDs, books, and Club Memberships to the current demographic.
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
ROFL Traci....tell us how your really feel. 
I'm in the #3 camp. I think of it as Natural Communication, rather then horsemanship. There are all kinds of horsemanship, some of them excellent because they work. I think NH is different in that it looks at natural horse-herd behavior for the human to learn to communicate with the horse in a language they understand.
|
fairhavenranch
|
Sorry!  I just couldn't help myself! 
|
coveredbridgefarm
|
Ann wrote:
| Quote: | | Larry will be here shortly to remind me that I'm hung up on specific terms right now, |
I think you are but I think it's a good thing. Words mean different things to different people. How is good communication possible when that happens? It also gives us an opportunity to feel how our horses feel.
I think Traci's answer is correct from the corporation's perspective because it wants to make money.
I think #1 is correct from a social perspective because society likes to categorize things, usually inaccurately.
I think #2 may be correct from the horse's perspective. I can't say for sure because
I'm putting myself in category #3 and it's still a work in progress for me.
Maybe a more accurate term for what Parelli teaches would be Parelli Relatively Natural horsemanship(PRNH). But it would be harder to market their products with that name.
Larry
|
Nashama
|
All 3, but mostly No1 for me. To really understand equine behaviour, I worked with a stallion behavioural scientist or 3.
|
TrickMule
|
To me it has slightly blurred edges, but there as some basic principles that I look for to categorise something as "natural".....:
1. Interactions are rooted in ethology. In other words, working with the nature of the horse to achieve what you want. This means that students need to understand horse psychology and behaviour to practise it.
2. The horse is absolved of blame with any problems or issues becoming the responsibility of the rider/handler to solve.
3. The horse is viewed as a thinking, feeling animal, rather than a machine.
4. The time is taken to truly train, rather than to not. In other words, nothing is deliberately sneaked or stolen.
5. Feedback from the horse is viewed in the light that the horse does his best, as he perceives it, in whatever situation he finds himself, based on his nature and instincts. The rider/handler continuously looks for feedback and does not prevent the horse from showing it by employing passive restrictive devices.
6. The rider/handler works hard to ensure that the horse is mentally, emotionally and physically prepared for his work and any other situations he may find himself in during the course of his life with humans.
7. It permeates through all horse-human interactions, not just for riding. It is a way to do everything.
I am sure I could think of more, but I have to get to work. I think Pat did a decent job of trying to describe what it is with his 8 principles, but then that is probably because I first learned about natural from Pat so how I think about it is likely to be heavily influenced by the way Pat thinks about it.
And as you can see, the way I look at it there is plenty of room for it to transcend all disciplines.
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
| TrickMule wrote: |
5. Feedback from the horse is viewed in the light that the horse does his best, as he perceives it, in whatever situation he finds himself, based on his nature and instincts. The rider/handler continuously looks for feedback and does not prevent the horse from showing it by employing passive restrictive devices.
|
Could you clarify what you mean by the bolded part?
Do you mean the rider should not use passive restrictive devices so the horse can show feedback? In other words ALL Liberty...although I guess a fence could be called a passive restrictive device.
Or do you men the rider should use only passive restrictive devices that allow the horse to show feedback?
|
TrickMule
|
| PasoBaby_CarolU wrote: | | TrickMule wrote: |
5. Feedback from the horse is viewed in the light that the horse does his best, as he perceives it, in whatever situation he finds himself, based on his nature and instincts. The rider/handler continuously looks for feedback and does not prevent the horse from showing it by employing passive restrictive devices.
|
Could you clarify what you mean by the bolded part?
Do you mean the rider should not use passive restrictive devices so the horse can show feedback? In other words ALL Liberty...although I guess a fence could be called a passive restrictive device.
Or do you men the rider should use only passive restrictive devices that allow the horse to show feedback? |
Er, ooops - was rushing out the door at early o'clock this morning and did not notice in my haste that my wording here was not at all adequate. I did not mean no fences or ropes. I meant things like tight nosebands which silence useful feedback. Such things don't really fit with my idea of natural as they don't really get at the cause of the feedback. But I can see how a passive restrictive device could be interpreted to mean just about anything. I guess it is just where the line is drawn?
My bad.
|
Playenatural
|
Number 1 for me and everything Liz said.
|
Thunder Hollow
|
|
Playenatural
|
No it's not a school, just the name of the school. Not natural at all, just a way to separate, classify.
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
| Thunder Hollow wrote: |
Carol, you said in another thread that you don't think Ray Hunt or Buck are "natural", but why?
|
Too many questions at once Ann. I'll answer this one. First, I don't think they consider themselves "Natural Horsemen"....just "Horsemen" or "Bridlemen" etc. Secondly, their training is traditional ranch horse training. There is a certain amount of reading the horse to be done, but they don't spend time teaching people prey animal dynamics, horse/people body language, horse psychology or what Buck would call "Crap." Go read what he told Kylie to do with her mare. There isn't any milk-toast or room for marshmallows in that guidance, just plain, simple ranch horse training. "Get on and ride" is pretty un--Natural. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, it's just not the same.
Compare that to the weeks or months you spend doing ground work with most NH clinicians. I'd put Parelli, Anderson, Reis, Rashid, Hempfling, Resnick, in the NH school. I don't think John Lyons is an NH, but is probably a good example of in-between schools.
|
Playenatural
|
| PasoBaby_CarolU wrote: | | There is a certain amount of reading the horse to be done, but they don't spend time teaching people prey animal dynamics, horse/people body language, horse psychology or what Buck would call "Crap." |
I think you are reading a lot into that comment from Kylie. I think a lot of people did.
And the traditional Ranch Horse training I witnessed was never as caring as what I have seen from the Dorrances, Ray or Buck. I see legs tied up, buck um' out type of riding. Big curb bits to stop, neck reining gone wrong.
I think we all could argue who belongs in each camp and shouldn't there be more camps. Anderson wouldn't make it in with the NH-men in my book, nor would Monty, or JL.
What Kylie was told was no nonsense but not unNatural, it seems to be to be taking down (oh no) a threshold. (can't believe I said that Ann)  
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
Shannon, I'm not sure how to word it so you understand the difference...but it is GOOD training, without all the touchy-feely stuff. Does that help?
|
Playenatural
|
Carol, yes, that clarifies your meaning. It's just that watched several people (over the weekend) get very judgmental over something she said, he said, if you get my drift. Hard to judge on hearsay. 
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
I agree, and I only pointed out the advice to Kylie as an example. I've watched Buck's YouTube videos and read the schedules for his clinics. He is a meat and potatoes kind of trainer.
I have to agree with you about CA. Not my idea of NH, but he is considered NH by the mainstream.
|
Thunder Hollow
|
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
Ann, the "Get on and Ride" was from what he said in the clinic. To ride your horse, not spend hours doing groundwork. I know how you are about words, and know how defensive some are about Buck, but the distinction really is in the touchy-feely groundwork, like I mentioned to Shannon. You don't find that at Buck's clinics. The difference is the stuff Buck calls "crap."
I didn't say they (Buck and Ray) weren't great Horsemen. They remind me very much of my farrier years ago, who I learned a great deal from...quiet, gentle, but no-nonsense horsemanship. I think they'd even separate themselves from the Natural Horsemanship genre.
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
And just to throw a wrench in, I consider Tom and Bill the 'fathers' of Natural Horsemanship. Look at their books, how much (all) is devoted to reading and understanding the horse, doing what's right for the horse. Getting people to understand horses.
|
Thunder Hollow
|
|
Playenatural
|
| KylieGodwin wrote: |
I am at a Buck Brannaman clinic as we speak and his references to Parelli, although he doesn't name names, are less than flattering. The words 'rubbish', and 'crap' plus many others have been attached to his statements......
|
Is what she said, but it's not detailed enough to get everything everyone got out of it.
|
Thunder Hollow
|
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
Thank you Shannon, and it's in a different thread Ann, which is probably why you didn't see it.
|
Playenatural
|
| TrickMule wrote: | To me it has slightly blurred edges, but there as some basic principles that I look for to categorise something as "natural".....:
1. Interactions are rooted in ethology. In other words, working with the nature of the horse to achieve what you want. This means that students need to understand horse psychology and behaviour to practise it.
2. The horse is absolved of blame with any problems or issues becoming the responsibility of the rider/handler to solve.
3. The horse is viewed as a thinking, feeling animal, rather than a machine.
4. The time is taken to truly train, rather than to not. In other words, nothing is deliberately sneaked or stolen.
5. Feedback from the horse is viewed in the light that the horse does his best, as he perceives it, in whatever situation he finds himself, based on his nature and instincts. The rider/handler continuously looks for feedback and does not prevent the horse from showing it by employing passive restrictive devices.
6. The rider/handler works hard to ensure that the horse is mentally, emotionally and physically prepared for his work and any other situations he may find himself in during the course of his life with humans.
7. It permeates through all horse-human interactions, not just for riding. It is a way to do everything.
I am sure I could think of more, but I have to get to work. I think Pat did a decent job of trying to describe what it is with his 8 principles, but then that is probably because I first learned about natural from Pat so how I think about it is likely to be heavily influenced by the way Pat thinks about it.
And as you can see, the way I look at it there is plenty of room for it to transcend all disciplines. |
I keep coming back to Liz's guidelines. They are what I look for in a teacher, I feel some of the people mentioned miss the boat in some of these areas. Some that are heavily in the NH camp don't fill all these. That said the Dorrance Bros, Ray and such introduced us to reading horses and understanding horse psychology.
For me I started with John Lyons, he only helped me and my mare a limited amount, they were some tricks that would help for a bit but didn't get to the roots. I know I didn't know or look at things from her perspective while following John Lyons. So I think he is a regular horse person with tricks, I see his students and they catch me as the same, not in the Natural camp.
The next great I saw was Tom Dorrance. That was when I realized how much I didn't know. It sparked my interest to find more. This man fits Liz's guidelines.
Next was Monty. Join-up was his one up on John.
Then CA. For a limited time only.
Thank goodness I had a friend push me to Pat. Who I think use to be in the Natural camp but I see him straying... for what? ego? I don't know. When I started reading his horses then I knew he wasn't following what he preached.
Since Pat I have studied at least as many teachers as I did before. Ranging from WHR, clicker, KFH to Buck and Ray amongst others that are rarely mentioned here because no one in the mainstream has heard of them.
I think good Buckaroo horsemanship, like many forms of horsemanship take all of Liz's points into account.
Back to what is Natural? Again I just think it is a name to classify, but because it is tied to Pat a lot of people don't want to be put in that school.
Random thought spew over.
|
Thunder Hollow
|
|
Playenatural
|
Again, it is only a name. I don't think it is accurate.
Back to Liz's list.
1. Understanding Horse Psychology
2. Not blaming the horse
3. Consider the Horse's feelings
4. Train, don't sneak. ( a considerable amount of knowledge is needed here to even know what sneaking is.)
5. Feedback from the horse is welcome and used.
6. Proper Preparation
7. Is reflected in everyday habits with the horse.
Is it still a person? Or are they guidelines?
Is it all still new to know?
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
Something to remember is that we are unique. We live in a certain area of a certain country. While we have heard of Tom, seen his books, learned from his students, most people on this forum only met Tom through Pat. Some still don't know Tom OR Bill OR Ray OR or or or...........
Remember this is an International board with students of many different disciplines in different countries. Parelli was their introduction to another kind of horsemanship that considers the horse, that even cares about the horse. I remember my first Tour Stop and seeing row upon row of "cowboys" who used to "break" horses learning a new way, a better way to treat horses. I'll be totally honest that NONE of these cowboys would have heard of Tom, Bill, Ray or Horsemanship through Feel, if they weren't sitting in those bleachers.
Most these cowboys have turned to Clinton Anderson now and that's too bad. He's a lot harder on a horse then PNH is.
I don't have any problem with Liz's list, but I honestly think that Natural Horsemanship has more to do with training the human then training the horse. First of all, it's training humans to care.
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
I have to thank LeAnn (imagle) for expressing this better then I did. From her write up on Buck's clinic, it is an explanation of the ranch horse training I was talking about.
| Quote: | | Buck made it clear - what he is teaching is NOT a general horse program suitable for everyone. He is riding and teaching the Californio tradition where the ultimate result is a straight up bridle horse capable of working cattle on the range with a high degree of precision. If you dont want to do that - that is fine with him - but it is the ultimate aim of what he is teaching and the students need to be aware of that fact. It is what he knows, it is what he does with his horses, it is what he teaches. |
When you come from a ranch life, you appreciate this. I also believe a horse prefers to have a job....a purpose. That doesn't mean this horse won't be an equally good trail horse or reining horse, but the foundation is there for a WORKING ranch horse.
|
ssmith
|
 Well said Carol & every one else too, we got into this discusion the other day. What is natural horsemanship besides a catch phrase to sell rope halters and the latest and greatest Gadgets. It crossed my mind that it's how you view the horse. Is it just a tool, a way to make money just a piece of property to be bought or sold, a way to make money or futher your own ambitions with no regard for the anminal.
Or do you you view the horse as a animal that God put on this earth for us to have a companion, somthing to make us smile and laugh, and even help us to become better people.
Myself or anyone here would Never knowingly do anything that would hurt there horse, they are living breathing feeling creatures that we all have Been given responablity for. My belief is those that feel that way are natural in they way they love and care for there horses, all others people, trainers ect are not.
Sorry if I jumped on my soap box just my thoughts.
Thanks for reading
Scott
|
TrickMule
|
I think it all depends on what we take the word natural to mean, which is a philosophical debate more than anything else. I could just as easily have used the term "good" instead of natural for my guidelines, or even "classical". And like is occurring on this board now, the classical dressage people are forever debating what is classical, what does it mean, what does it encompass.
That being said, I am personally quite happy to accept that the word natural has been hijacked to describe a particular type of approach to, and philosophy of, horsemanship and I am happy to go along with the generally accepted application of the word as this allows us to imagine some unifying similarities that enable meaningful discussion of schools, approaches, philosophies, concepts and theories - however you want to describe it. My guidelines/principles as outlined above, are worded to allow for both the "NH" clinicians and the clinicians/masters/horsemen who do not have the NH label as it is commonly used today. So, you could apply them to what Philippe Karl does as well for example. He would not consider himself NH and I guess we would not either, but his approach falls squarely within my guidelines. So this means that really I am using the word natural as a synonym for what I believe to be "good". And this is the source of the blurred edges and cloudiness I referred to earlier. In other words, many non-NH clinicians/masters/horsemen to me, are natural in what they do, but do not use this label and have chosen not to focus on it in the same way as many of what we would call the NH clinicians do.
To understand my point of view, I think of humans as part of the natural world and I believe many of our urges and behaviours are therefore natural. I am happy to consider our desire to have "something" with horses (and other animals, such as dogs) as natural, because it is an aspect of our nature. I also believe that was is natural changes as the world changes. I don't think of it as something fixed, or belonging only to a golden age when we were hunter/gatherers in loincloths and therefore I don't think we can legitimately stand outside of nature as if we were not part of it. From that philosophical stance, all manner of possibilities extend. If we extend it fully, some of those possibilities might be very challenging for many of us to accept and some of which might never become acceptable within our individual moral frameworks (eg murder).
If you think of natural as something else, then the philosophical problem might become greater than the reality and the argument becomes less about what is than about what we think should be.
For example, if the stance is taken that is is unnatural for us to domesticate horses, then any form of horsemanship is unnatural. But opening all the gates is not the solution because most of our horses are a) not genetically designed to live in the climate they currently find themselves in and b) the world has changed and the territories our animals need to live independently from us do not exist in the same way anymore. Sure there are pockets here and there, and opening all the gates and leaving the situation to sort itself out might eventually produce some sort of ecological and evolutionary equilibrium with feral/wild horses making it in certain places, but not without a high degree of attrition and suffering to which we as humans probably could not help but respond to with rescue schemes, etc. And even where pockets of successful equine habitation exist, we find that they generate their own problems and may therefore require some sort of intervention or management from us anyway, thus not really reflecting a natural situation (as applied from the stance outlined at the beginning of this paragraph).
I could write much, much more about all of this as I enjoy a philosophical argument as much as the next man (or woman) and as an academic I like nothing more than a conceptual debate, but I have to go.
|
rotate88
|
I think the term "natural" has very little meaning in and of itself. Nature, to me, includes everything; nothing exists outside of Nature. In my field (music) people are said to be "naturals" who are able to play incredibly well without formal instruction or theoretical background. Well, so what? All that says is they can do something without knowing what, why, or how. For me, there's not much value in that, and leaves nothing to build on (Tom Dorrance says the same thing in his book).
People either get along with horses or they don't. Horses either respond and relate to us or they don't (to greater and lesser degrees). Domestic horses are no more or less natural than wild ones. There is nothing unnatural at all about getting on and riding. It's all in how one goes about it.
Instead of "natural," I would consider the highest compliment anyone could pay me to be, "he's good with horses."
|
TrickMule
|
| Dr Dave wrote: | | Instead of "natural," I would consider the highest compliment anyone could pay me to be, "he's good with horses." |
Yes, I would be pretty happy with that too! Except it would be good if they would call me "she"..... 
Dr Liz
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
| rotate88 wrote: |
Instead of "natural," I would consider the highest compliment anyone could pay me to be, "he's good with horses." |
While I agree that the term "natural" is difficult because there really is nothing natural about owning or riding a horse, or owning a dog or cat either. I think to move on you have to accept that and go from there.
If I didn't know so many people that were technically good with horses, that weren't natural, some even cruel, I'd agree with you. Maybe "good FOR horses" would be a better compliment, but even that could apply to someone who runs a retirement home for senior horses, never rides or trains at all, but is wonderful with them in their final years and days. The lady I am thinking of is a saint. I don't know how she does it. She goes through several heartbreaks a year.
To be honest, I'm quite proud to be a Natural Horseman. What people I trail ride with see is a calm horse who stands to be saddled, hung with bags and water bottles, and to be mounted; has good manners around other horses, will maintain speed and gait without kicking, whipping, or jerking on the reins. A horse that will back out of my space on the ground, etc. All this is with a horse who obviously is happy doing all these things and going down the trail.
I get lots of compliments on my horses. I've brought a lot of people to Parelli just by trail riding with them.
There is a professional trainer that I know, who is very successful with horses. Her horses aren't petted, or patted, loved on or massaged, they aren't allowed any curiosity or to play. They are driven into the bit with her seat and worked hard there for 45 minutes every day.
Is she good with horses? Her horses do everything correctly, but there is no questioning and no choice. These horses are hard to catch, have their ears back constantly, hate her and hate life. They are catatonic during their exercise period. Some loose their minds and never come back.
|
rotate88
|
| PasoBaby_CarolU wrote: | | While I agree that the term "natural" is difficult because there really is nothing natural about owning or riding a horse, or owning a dog or cat either. I think to move on you have to accept that and go from there. |
But then why does Pat's first principle state that horsemanship is natural?
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I am just wondering if there needs to be the seeming contradiction between viewing our passion as unnatural, and doing it anyway and calling it natural. For me, I am able to move on when I tell myself (correctly or not) that I am part of Nature, therefore anything I do with any other species is natural; the only variables are the quality of my communication and the resulting understanding between us.
The professional you asked about: I would say she is not good with horses at all; she is merely a mechanic. It's the same thing in piano playing. There are so many talented young players who are forced into mindless drills using destructive hand positions, curled fingers, and the "no pain, no gain" philosophy. They can play the most incredibly difficult, virtuosic works in the literature note-perfect, but without any expression or (as Bruce Lee once said) emotional content. And they look miserable up there onstage. Are they musicians? Nope, just robots.
But music is as natural as horsemanship, so we're back to quality and understanding...
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
I disagree Dr. Dave.
I think the word you are missing is "Communication" and that is what makes Horsemanship natural or not. In one kind of 'horsemanship' there is one direct line of communication...DO IT MY WAY. The horse, its feelings, its instincts, its very nature are not considered at all. In Natural Horsemanship you look at how horses live and communicate in a natural herd environment, how they learn new things naturally, and how to apply that in the horse-human relationship. THAT is where the "natural" comes from.
|
rotate88
|
There's no disagreement that I can see...and I did mention communication; it dovetails with your definition in that the "quality" of communication can be measured by its congruency with the nature of the horse.
And I absolutely agree about the bankruptcy of the "do it my way" approach. I always liked how Pat (maybe Ray said it first?) expressed what we're talking about, "do my thing your way."
|
PasoBaby_CarolU
|
Knowing Pat, it might have come from Troy Henry. He was the original source of good horse knowledge for Pat.
|
Playenatural
|
Actually I just as in five minutes ago read this quote on the bottom of page 3 in Think Harmony with Horses. It makes so much sense no matter if you apply it to a horse, employee, or a child. As someone said recently the more you learn the more you tie all of this together. Religion to meditation to intuitive thinking to feel and on and on. Even teaching my 8 year old to drive the Kabota.
|
coveredbridgefarm
|
Dr Dave wrote:
| Quote: | | I am just wondering if there needs to be the seeming contradiction between viewing our passion as unnatural, and doing it anyway and calling it natural. |
What a great point to ponder. It's hard to ignore or dispute that observation.
I'll offer the following, quite possibly incoherent, maybe largely irrelevant, observation that man has spent eons trying to escape nature and to conquer it. There is plenty of evidence to support this, imo. Dams on rivers, paved roads, city lifestyles, computers, innoculations against disease. There are probably many better examples than those. The point is that man charts his "progress" in large part based on the distance he has put between himself and nature. There is no reason, therefore, to be surprised that 'going natural' is difficult for man. In fact, I think man's misuse of the word "natural" may be a testimony to man's success in alienating himself from nature. He doesn't know where to go to get back to nature.
Natural horsemanship is nothing more than an attempt to reconnect with nature because man thinks horses are still connected with nature. That very premise may be untrue, what with man's domestication of the species.
So what we really have here is a relatively unnatural species(that would be us) trying to determine the ways of a relatively natural species(the horse) and using a vaguely defined language to explain what he(man) is actually doing. Hence the term, Natural Horsemanship.
Of course it's an oxymoron. But that can be justified given where man's understanding is at this point in time.
Larry
|
rotate88
|
| coveredbridgefarm wrote: | | I'll offer the following, quite possibly incoherent, maybe largely irrelevant, observation that man has spent eons trying to escape nature and to conquer it. There is plenty of evidence to support this, imo. Dams on rivers, paved roads, city lifestyles, computers, innoculations against disease. There are probably many better examples than those. The point is that man charts his "progress" in large part based on the distance he has put between himself and nature. There is no reason, therefore, to be surprised that 'going natural' is difficult for man. In fact, I think man's misuse of the word "natural" may be a testimony to man's success in alienating himself from nature. He doesn't know where to go to get back to nature. |
Or, perhaps, all those achievements are our unique expressions of our nature; the Nature contained inside our skulls. There are schools of thought that argue that it is natural for people to build and live in cities.
One of my intellectual role models, Ayn Rand, said something very interesting. While I think that what her followers did with her ideas is lame at best and dangerous at worst, I do love this line from her non-fiction writings: "Nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed."
|
kristie
|
__
|
coveredbridgefarm
|
| rotate88 wrote: |
Or, perhaps, all those achievements are our unique expressions of our nature; the Nature contained inside our skulls. There are schools of thought that argue that it is natural for people to build and live in cities. |
Maybe we could say that each species has its own nature and then there is NATURE, a kind of control center which the nature of other species now connect with better than we do.
I tend to visualize NATURE in so far as it applies to this discussion, as that which existed before man, or at least before man started seriously influencing the planet. Horses are still significantly connected to that NATURE through their instincts a lot more than man is. I'm pretty sure of that. In my way of looking at things at the present time, I think man's difficulty with understanding the mind of the horse has a lot to do with the disparity in the levels of connection by man and horse to that long ago world(NATURE).
| Quote: | | One of my intellectual role models, Ayn Rand, said something very interesting. While I think that what her followers did with her ideas is lame at best and dangerous at worst, I do love this line from her non-fiction writings: "Nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed." |
Now we come down to this statement which I really like, the last half of which I think man has blatantly ignored. If a species goes a long time disobeying or ignoring NATURE, it will grow increasingly disconnected with it. And if a species disobeys NATURE long enough, I'm afraid it will be punished(a bit off topic).
So I am inclined to believe that is where we are now. We have strayed far away from the command center and we are seriously disconnected while horses have maintained a connection to the command center. A few of us are struggling to learn the mind of the horse and we are amazed at how difficult these concepts are for us to learn because we had no idea how disconnected we were. We are so disconnected that our language doesn't even work for us. Our language is inadequate to explain concepts that horses easily understand. And some people blame the horse.
At least a few of us are slowly becoming aware that it's not the horse that is wrong. To paraphrse Neil Armstrong(with a major alteration): A small leap for man, with the potential to be a giant leap for mankind.
Larry
|
Mandy'sMarty
|
Amen.
|
Hertha
|
Dr Dave mentioned that Pat says early on that horsemanship is 'natural'. Must admit that I always thought that was a load of bunkum.
Naturally we would eat the horse (as some do).
Naturally we use them for riding so we can hunt down other things to eat.
Naturally we make them carry our burdens.
Naturally we used them as war machines.
When the power goes off and the phones don't work and the roof blows off the house, who is more concerned? Me or my horse?
Whose life would change dramatically?
|
thelmanelle
|
Hertha,
One of the very reasons I took up learning to gardening and bought harnesses and plows. I need to survive to help my horses survive, too. We are a farm. We sometimes need to give them a job.
Even, Pat said to give your horse a job. My Border Collie wants a job, too.
Times are what they are and I am a member of two plow clubs to learn a art if I need it.
|
|