Storm wrote:
The two genders are different in many way as well amongs humans as other amongst animals (basically humans are animals too). In ancient cultures that were mostly matriarchic, wome were the symbols, and keepers of wisdom, and also since these ancient religions were worshipping a great mother goddes, or Earthmother, wome were the projection of the mother goddess. Wome are also the keepers of the power of creation by being able to give life to another.
Still I have never said that you should change your practice, or that it would be wrong, I only said I look things a bit different.
Actually, Storm, if you read closely what you have written, after giving it a rest for a few days you'll see that indeed your approach is that we are "wrong." And our practices are "wrong." But, that is the nature of debate. Sometimes we say things we do not mean. And in the written word that is easily seen as something different than your intention.
Storm wrote:
I know somebody and a bounch of people followng that person. Their statement is also that the horse is in charge. The result is: their horses are simply ignoring them, they have no any respect and what they does is often extremly dangerous. The whole thing leads nowhere. A horse is in charge and they do not even try to guide, of course nothing workd for them really. They even found out that since the horse is the big boss, humans have no right to sit on the horses' back. I guess the next will be that the horses should sit on the humans?
I logic, and debate, such an argument is referred to, as you might alread know, as the argument of reduction to the absurd, reductio absurdum, I think is the latin term.
No, we don't intend for our horses to sit on us humans, but we do enjoy sitting down together side by side from time to time.
Storm wrote:
So anyway that is just an example of how stating tha horse is in charge can lead to total anarchy. And this is why when somebody tells me that the horse is in charge, I have bad feelings at first.
You are not alone in your feelings. Many do feel the same way. It usually eases up if they stay and learn. Just read with as objective a mind as you can muster. It all kind of falls together. In fact, in this very thread, if you read back up it, you'll find a great deal of information that strongly suggests that we do not wish our horses to sit on us, nor do we wish harm to anyone, even our selves.
And further, that we do what we do with far LESS harm than so often comes to those that handle horses in the orthodoxy of "performance." Eventing, stadium jumping, even dressage as it's ridden today, come under suspicion for injury to one or the other, horse, or rider. With all the strange things we do with our horses in our methods described as AND, not one of us has been killed. Did you know that death of horses, and the occasional human is seen in Eventing? And what could be more practiced with "good," horsemanship, as you use the term, than eventing?
I do not think it so. And I think that thinking so is an error in thinking. A failure of logic. I do hope you do not take offense but rather take another look logically and objectively to orthodoxy in horsemanship, and AND horsemanship.
View a few videos of some or our members at "wild play," with our horses and know that injuries, are few, and those that do happen are inconsequential usually. A scrape, a bump, occasionally falling off the horse.
Yet, without bits, and often with no bridle, we rarely have a horse "run away," yet you hear of this often in the orthodox world. In fact, in this orthodox horse world just in the U.S. on average 20 people a year are killed. I daresay bits and bridles likely figured in many instances, along with standard horse handling practices.
Storm wrote:
Again I say that nobody should be in charge. What I say is that you must be the one the horse trust, who he can rely on.
You give him food and water, you clean him, you help him get rid of parazites, you take care abou his afety, you tell him what places are dangerous to go, or what things should not be done. You teach him that humans are not that though and if he bites you playfully as he does with other horses that can seriously injure you, you teach him how to tell you if they want food, or you wor out the common language on wich he can say you no or yes. You teach them to stay calm while the vet does its work, while you shape his hoofs or check his teeth. You treat his injuries if he gets one and you give him medication if relly needed. All in all, this is whyt I call being the leader.
I tend to think of it as "the parent." Because of the disparity of our power, we being the more powerful in the larger picture, that is we humans having even the direct power of life or death, and the ability to hold them in captivity, it appears we are "the leader."
But just as with children, a horse can be my sensei, my teacher, my mentor. And still I can be the one responsible for food, shelter, health, etc.
Storm wrote:
In my opinion what you do is still being a leader, you ask them where to go or what to do but you are still a leader they have chosen themselves, they have chone you to trust, and if there is a problem they let you do what is needed to solve the problem, because they trust, respect and love you as you trust resoect and love them.
Hmmm...I am unaware of many horses having chosen their humans. To me they seem to do this after testing us. Some even never choose us at all. But are simply owned and parked like a car.
Storm wrote:
What I say is more a lik a philosophycal difference but I am talking about the same you are talking about.
I'm afraid you aren't. But then what AND is, and what we are about, isn't clear to you yet. Heck, sometimes it's not even clear to me. I grow in AND each day, and often make discoveries.
Just recently I believe I have discovered something I think is remarkable but not magic, though it's nice to think it is.
I believe the horse's sensory system for smell is capable of extracting much more information from the molecules that make up a scent, a compound most likely, and that a part of their brain can interpret this in ways we can only dream of for ourselves.
I am experimenting with it in a primitive way with my little 3-4 month old filly each day now. I think nice thoughts, things go on as usual. I think evil thoughts about her and she reacts negatively. Even explicitly wrinkling her nose at my nasty evil thoughts. Or nuzzling me sweetly when I think nice loving thoughts, and we exchange breaths.
Tell me, can the orthodox horse world come up with jargon to describe this possible new discovery? (That I bet some ancients knew quite well).
Rather than offering your philosophy, though you could start a website forum on your agenda easily enough, why not read more here and come back and ask questions and speculate with us on what AND is for us, and what it appears to be by your views some more.
Best wishes to you, Donald
PS. What I am looking for now with Bonnie is clearing my mind, reading her breath with my own scent detection and interpretation and learning what SHE is thinking and feeling. Think I can do it? Darned if I know, but the possibility is more than worth the effort. DR