Feed on
Posts
Comments

In Chapter 2 of Dancing with Horses Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling (KFH) defines the essence of riding a horse as ‘communication and balance’. The corollary to this is that any form of interaction with a horse other than riding will at the very least necessitate communication, if not balance as well. He then goes on to stipulate two prerequisites for such communication. To many who seek a humane form of interaction with a horse, one of these is self-evident: trust. If you are to communicate with your horse, it needs to trust you implicitly. The other prerequisite which KFH postulates is almost guaranteed to raise the hackles on the necks of the same category of humans: dominance. This is partly because the concept of dominance is often accorded the negative connotations of its linguistic cousin, ‘domination’, and partly because the latter is so typical of modern conventional approaches to horsemanship, including those relying on refined forms of pressure and release.

This is the first paragraph of a paper I have just written on the subject of communication, domination and trust, the second of a series of papers written as I reread Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling’s book, Dancing with Horses. You can download it by clicking here. If you have difficulties with the link, just paste this URL into your browser: http://www.horsesandhumans.com/documents/002_communication_dominance_and_trust.pdf.

All feedback including criticism is welcome but please be gentle.

Vicki will be providing the next real update. With any luck it should be out in the course of next week.

17 Responses to “Communication, Dominance and Trust”

  1. All feedback including criticism is welcome but please be gentle.

    Dear Andrew first of all I want to compliment you on your endeavour. It is very very interesting and I shall keep on following you in this. I am sure it will prove to be part of your quest. I wish you lots of criticsm – gentle and not gentle.
    For that reason I started my reply with your last sentence. If my English reads perhaps less divers my apologies for that. It is all I have at my disposal. And perhaps Vicky can see the Dutch tendency/reasoning behind the words so she can translate them into proper English if necessary.

    Why that sentence. It gives me the impression/feeling that you do not like criticism. Or perhaps are afraid of criticism. The Law of Attraction will make sure you will get criticism. If you are convinced that there is no fear, why the sentence. Any criticism can be regarded as welcome. How unpleasant it might look like or feel in the end the most painful criticism – literally or figuratively, physically, emotionally, mentally or spiritually – will prove to be the most beneficial and enlightening.

    What is really funny is that KFH is also like that. He does not really like criticism.

    I have read your “Communication, Dominance and Trust”-story. As I said above I find it extremely interesting.
    There are a few aspects that I would like to talk to you about. Perhaps if you feel like it you could give your ideas on my ideas. I do not mind criticism as it helps me get closer and closer to finding/rediscovering my authentic self. And if it does not resonate with me at all at this moment it might resonate with something from my past. I know by now it usually is nothing personal as it also tells me something about the person expressing the criticism. Is the criticism ego-driven or does it originate from the Source Energy.

    In your story you mention ‘subordinate’. Why not ‘submissive’ instead. ‘Subordinate’ has a sound of oppression whilst ‘submissve’ is a more humble attitude. Is it KFH’s way of describing the situation??

    “Within KFH’s approach the dominance of the human is so empathic in the form of his presence ……etc” The lead mare is as far as my knowledge goes a wise ‘old’ mare that only needs to move her ears for example. She does not need a dominant attitude. Her energy suffices. The lead stallion also follows the lead mare. In my view there is only dominant behaviour among the herd members that are not either lead mare or lead stallion. That is why the interaction between human and horse is constantly one of territory invasion and checking boundaries as long as the horse does not trust the human to being his leader. If the horse does cross man’s boundaries uninvited and the human ‘slashes out’ it is like an action of another herd member I think. Not of a lead mare/stallion. So this checking will be a daily business like in the herd. When the horse is subordinate it will have developed an amount of respect. That does not mean, however, that there is trust as well. The lead mare/stallion never gets into such a confrontation. Before any confrontation might develop they have already communicated with their body language and voice if necessary.

    I do not like nor understand the “now-obedient horse”. If that is how KFH has written it down – ?? – maybe he wants to make something clear using the wrong words.

    “Healing to the horse” what do you or does KFH mean by that. According to what the NESSCAN shows time and time again there is still so much for the human to discover in himself. It takes years. Even KFH’s One-Year Education is too short for that. He himself is still in the middle of getting or becoming healed. All the people and the traumatised horses that come to Lyö play an important role in his personal healing process. If there is someone that reflects KFH’s inner turmoils too clearly he doesnot really like that person and will try to avoid him/her.

    How is it possible for a non-congruent human to heal a horse. It takes more than just body awareness to get from non-congruence to congruence. And it is very difficult for us humans to read the horse in such a way that we can become as congruent as our horse. Some of the reasons for us being non-congruent can come from such a deep level that we have no clue at all. It takes a NESSCAN for example to be able to get an idea. And with the NESSCAN we humans can also get an idea of what the horse really means to us. The unconditional love of the horse for man in taking part in man’s non-congruence and helping man getting to his authentic self. Learning to live in the present and experiencing the power of now as Eckhart Tolle describes so well.

    Of course there are pitfalls everywhere. Also the ‘guru’ himself has to be careful for his own pitfalls. And not tell an audience for example that they will never achieve what he has achieved as none of the participants has had the experiences KFH has in his rucksack. Well, yeah, of course he can say that if he wants to and he did. The result was that the energy in the hall dropped so far below point zero that KFH himself felt it and expressed himself in such a way that he would stop right there and then and send everybody back home if some members of the audience would not be able to keep their ‘troubles’ to themselves. In the meantime he had just told us all about his own troubles. That is just the beautiful thing of all this. He had no intention of continuing if the feeling wasn’t going to change. I myself had tremendous diffculty staying awake as my eyelids were getting ridiculously heavy. KFH at one point was standing near to me and said “What is going on??”. I responded in a low voice “that is a good question” I didn’t think he would have heard that but he had and sort of jumped on me. Who are you. Where do you come from. What is your name.
    When I had given an answer to all these questions and had stood up to explain to him what I in my view was happening he almost ‘ran’ back to his staff saying “whoa that is a strong woman”. Whether or not that was played I do not know. However people later approached me that they thought it very courageous for me to speak out like that. Vicky was in the audience as well.

    Why am I telling this.
    Who can convince me that all the people and the horses only come to him to be healed and made aware of their non-congruent being without having a task in return creating a situation and environment for KFH to further explore his own innermost feelings.

    Andrew, in an earlier blog you have expressed the wish, if I rememeber correctly, that you hope that you will one day be in a position again to share space and time with and be taught by ‘the master’. And ‘the master’ hopefully will continue developing himself as he himself writes that man must have the wish to develop constantly. And then perhaps you will have discovered that you yourself are your own greatest master.

    Well I shall leave it at this.
    I wish you and Vicky all the best. Although you (still) do not know me which makes it also very exciting writing to you in this manner I feel deeply and I am sure that if it is meant to be we shall meet. Hope everything is fine with Anaiis. And how about Dubu!!!

    Warmly, Geerteke

    • Susan says:

      Dear Andrew and Vicki,

      I stumbled onto your blog quite by accident ~ or probably not by accident at all, since this sort of information and dialogue is what I have been seeking. I was initially very excited, then very disappointed by your news. I quickly got over that in myself and then was so pleased and impressed to read how you handled all that has happened. It appears that you have already learned and grown a great deal and I look forward to where your journey takes you, and us!

      I want to comment on your recent article when I have more time, but first I would like to say that I understood your last sentence about welcoming all comments and criticism in a completely different way. I thought it was a charming and light-hearted way of opening the dialogue to any comments and it seemed to me that you were letting readers know that whatever thoughts we have are welcome and should be given in a thoughtful and caring (gentle) way.

      It seems that this is exactly what your article is about. Words and ideas can be understood in different ways and sometimes what is intended by the writer is not the message received. I so much appreciate your gentle way of looking at the writings of others and wondering how to interpret the ideas instead of assigning meaning to them. You bring up so many of the very thoughts I have had in reading Klaus’s books and it is exciting to me to know that I might share in that dialogue.

      Thank you so much for all of your time and effort!

      Susan
      USA

      • Andrew says:

        Dear Susan

        It is lovely to know that there are people like you ‘out there’ who are reading what are essentially notes designed to help me understand the writings of KFH and others who have set out on the path of finding a way of interacting with horses which is liberating to both horse and human.

        I find it particularly interesting to hear how others interpret what I am also reading so, if you have the time and are so inclined, I would love to hear how you respond to KFH’s writings on communication, domination and trust (or any other issue that he deals with).

        Be well!
        Andrew

    • Andrew says:

      Dear Geerteke

      Thank you for your compliments. I must confess though that this endeavour was kick-started by self-interest. I wanted – and still want – to know how KFH achieves that magic connection with horses in such a short space of time. So I thought it best to go back to basics and start at the very beginning.

      Criticism is welcome, believe me, and I can even accept harsh criticism if it is justified and the critic is able to show me that this is the case. Actually though, the comment was made more in jest. It is one that is frequently employed in light-hearted interaction between English speakers inviting criticism from each other.

      Your question concerning the terms, ‘subordinate’ and ‘submissive’, is very relevant. Obviously, I have failed to clarify my terminology properly, for which my apologies. The term, ‘subordinate’, is a fairly neutral one in English and is usually used to indicate that within a hierarchical structure a person (or horse in this case) occupies a rank lower down the structure in relation to another. On the other hand, ‘submissive’ refers to a subjective state (often subconscious) which entails that a person acts as though he is inferior to another. As such, it is entirely possible for a submissive person to occupy a dominant position in a hierarchy. Similarly, it is possible for dominant mare, such as Anaïs, to occupy a subordinate position in her herd, which she does.

      I agree with your comment that a lead mare or stallion never gets into a confrontation which would require some type of emphatic action to assert its dominant position (this refers to its position in the hierarchy and not its behaviour, a distinction which is important as the former refers to an objective situation and the other to subjective conduct). This is precisely KFH’s point about the secret of the knight. However, I would question your suggestion that no trust is involved. It would seem to me that the very existence of a herd presupposes a basic trust on the part of a horse that it is safer being part of it rather than not. In addition, horses also appear to place their trust in the lead horse to give the correct signals, especially where self-preservation is involved.

      Yes, the ‘now-obedient horse’ is an unfortunate term. I suspect though that the fault lies in the translation. Kristina McCormack usually does a good job but, like the rest of us, she is not perfect.

      You are probably right to state that acquiring self-knowledge is a long, ongoing business. Still, I wonder whether we humans do not sometimes make things more difficult than they actually are. In my brief experience body awareness can take you from non-congruence to congruence in minutes, certainly as practised by KFH and taught to me by his most senior body awareness instructor. It does this by simply focusing every part of you on what is happening and what you are experiencing in the moment to the extent that everything else disappears, as it were. It is a very special place to be. I also used to experience this when I just stood in the meadow with our horses and currently experience it when I take Anaïs for walks (yes, on a loose lead like a big, curious puppy). This I find particularly interesting, because I can get into this space and achieve a close connection with Anaïs outside the picadero but not inside it. Intellectually, I understand why and know where the solution is. Putting it into practice is an entirely different matter.

      And yes, I think you are spot on when you note that healing and awareness represent a two-way street between horses and humans, even with Klaus. There has definitely been a significant change between the KFH of Dancing with Horses and that of The Horse Seeks Me, one for the better.

      Ultimately, you are probably right too that we are our own greatest master. Sometimes though I think we can find help to find that master within us by others who are much further on the same path that we are travelling.

      All of us are well, thank you Geerteke, including Dubu. It has been a dark period but the light is now burning brightly again.

      Be well!
      Andrew

      • Dear Andrew,
        I read Heather’s reply about KFH’s ‘would die for the horse’…If that is what it is it is very easy and at the same time the most difficult. That one would die for someone or a horse is not lightly said. Perhaps KFH has experienced that and is that what he is talking about when he says that if you have not had the experience he has had you can never achieve what he has achieved in the connection with any horse.
        If there has been a moment in someone’s life where the realisation has materialised that your life is ‘nothing’ and the other’s life is all then perhaps (but maybe I am very wrong here in supposing this) it has no real value meaning that the attachment to your own life stops completely.
        Isn’t it in one of Shakespeare’s plays that the King says “A Horse, a
        Horse, my Kingdom for a Horse”. So the horse was much more valuable then anything else in those days of the knights.
        Or is the horse the symbol for life??
        So being prepared to die for a horse could perhaps be the same as giving your life for another life. Even in the insect world if I remember correctly there is a spider male that fertilizes the female and is then eaten by the female.
        Or when a woman giving birth is given the choice between her life and her baby’s life she would chose for the baby to live.
        Or the story of King Solomon where two women claim to be the mother of a baby and he then decides to cut the baby in half so they will each have a part of the baby and this one woman then says to give the baby to the other woman. King Solomon then knew which of the two woman was the mother.

        WOW this sometimes gives a feeling of helplessness. Is this being authentic and the horse knowing exactly when you can be trusted through and through and when not thus creating the ‘magical connection’. I am sure (and I am speaking for myself here) that there are moments that this happens between me and my horse. However to stay in this flow constantly is something else. There are still so many pitfalls.

        However, I do wish you lots of energy and perseverance and am looking forward to your next piece of writing. It is also very, very interesting and inspiring to read all the other replies.

        Thank you, Andrew, and take care

        Geerteke

  2. Nora Valk says:

    Lieve allebei, mag ik deze plek gebruiken om te vragen of jullie nog Amstelveenwaarts komen? Hier nl ook veranderingen, we gaan niet meer terug naar OZ, want Theo’s gezondheid is zo dat vliegen onverstandig is. Dus de knoop doorgehakt en krijgen nu een verblijfsvergunning. Dus zijn nu permanent in Amstelveen en hopen tzt jullie weer te zien. EN ik heb nog die heerlijke Oostenrijkse slofjes voor Vicky. Kom je ze halen of zal ik ze opsturen????? Veel liefs, NORA

  3. Heather says:

    Andrew, nice to read such an in depth study of Klaus’ writings – keep it up! Now – off to let my horses out – with all the qualities of a leader you have just described!!!!!! Well – I will wish them a good day in the sunshine!

    • Andrew says:

      Dear Heather

      Hope you are getting something out of my musings on KFH’s writings. I find it clarifies my understanding of his approach, which in turn helps me to work out what I should be doing. Anaïs then does her bit to signal whether I am on the right track or not.

      Last I heard you were making some amazing advances with your horses. Wishing them a good day in the sunshine is as good a place to start as any.

      Take care!
      Andrew

  4. I have really been enjoying your blog; your authenticity, humility, and honesty is an inspiration to me. Your animals are very blessed to have you for owners. I also loved going through your paper. The phrase on page 2 about the essence of body language being fully, holistically, and integrated-ly yourself was absolutely fascinating and one I will be thinking about for quite some time. It seems absolutely true; that horses only understand your body language as communication when you are truly using your whole, integrated self to communicate. It makes my heart jump, it so exciting and beautiful to think about.

    Another part of your article that I thank you so, so deeply for writing is that about pure positive reinforcement, utilizing only rewards (page 4). I have certainly trained in that way but it was hard — too hard — and somehow my horses seemed to not like it, though they did and learned a great deal. Yet the more I learned about horse training, particularly in melding KFH’s techniques with feel and release (a way of being and “training” horses that utilizes release instead of pressure as well as the avoidance of cues/conditioned responses), the more I saw the inherent force in a purely positive reinforcement system of cues and conditioned responses. This was not the authentic horse I wanted, and I am so interested that you have seen something similar.

    You are an amazing, inspirationally deep thinker about the horse-human relationship. I am so excited to continue to follow your journey. The horse world will truly benefit from it.

    Blessings,
    Hannah

    • Andrew says:

      Dear Hannah

      Thank you so much for your encouraging words. It is humbling to hear that we are capable of writing something that can move another human being so profoundly.

      Achieving that congruence between your inner and outer self when interacting with your horse is indeed special. For some reason within me (not the horse) I cannot manage it every time. This morning though I did. We have just returned from a walk with Anaïs in the forest (an early morning, hour-long ritual when conditions permit): two humans walking alongside a horse with not another soul in sight. It can be a very grounding meditative experience if you let it. As you walk, you are aware of the sounds, sights and smells around you, the flesh and feelings within you, the rhythms of those walking with you, and the synchronicity of your steps with the horse whose head is at your side. In that moment, which lasts as long as you allow it, nothing exists other than the immediacy of life at the cusp. It is truly liberating stuff.

      The interesting thing about KFH’s approach is that it is not so much the horse that needs to be trained as the human. It is only once the human has achieved a certain level of development that he is capable of helping the horse to develop. This is not to suggest that the path is linear and that you have to wait until you are fully developed before you can help your horse. I think KFH is right in saying that interacting with the horse helps you to undergo this development. My own experience is that there are areas in which one human makes headway while another does not. As such, development is patchy and uneven but overall it continues to improve. It is an exciting journey and one that I am happy to share with you to the extent that I can.

      Be well!
      Andrew

  5. Hello Andrew,

    We are all so different in this world, as thank goodness we were supposed to be.
    To me to totally analize a book, chapter, paragraph whatever in the very intellectual way you do, is quite amazing but to me would not be a priority.
    If you give the same book to six or more different people I feel each would have a diffferent feel on what they had read and look at parts of it quite differently. I am referring to any book at this stage.

    I believe that there are particular words in different languages that cannot be translated absolutely perfectly. Therefore there are bound to be certain words that may offend for the want of a better word.
    When we see the word ‘dominance’ in Klaus’ books, I know what he means and only have to see how he is with horses to know that word is used in the way that means the horse and Klaus have a great understanding and trust in each other so that it is safe and joyful interaction between them both.I guess in very simple terms it means that he is in charge of the situation and that the horse is happy.

    I am certainly no intellectual and make no excuses for that .

    What I do know is that through Klaus’ books my horses and I have have enjoyed
    each others company by keeping it simple, having fun, accepting not expecting, its amazing what can happen.

    I never cease to be amazed,

    Lots of love,
    Peggy

    • Andrew says:

      Dear Peggy

      Thank you for taking the time to comment on my article. Being aware of the special relationship that you have with your horses makes your contribution especially welcome.

      You are absolutely right to say that people interpret what they read differently. This is why I greatly appreciate the opportunity to hear about those differences. Others frequently approach a book from a different perspective and hearing about it has often helped me to reconsider my own interpretation and adapt it and my subsequent actions accordingly.

      I also agree with you that totally analysing a book, chapter, paragraph or whatever in an intellectual manner is not a priority. To me the object of the exercise is to try and understand the writer’s message, so that I can act on it rather than on a distorted interpretation of it. My notes are intended to do nothing more than that. The only difference is that I am sharing them with anyone who cares to read them.

      As a professional translator I can also readily agree with you that particular words in different languages cannot be translated absolutely perfectly, and that there are bound to be certain words that may offend. Rather than being caught up on the word, ‘dominance’, as many people are, you have gone straight to the essence: the nature of the relationship between horse and human as revealed in their interaction with each other. I sincerely wish that more people would do this.

      I have come across a number of different interpretations of the relationship between KFH and the horse but none which expresses it quite as well as you have: ‘in very simple terms it means that he is in charge of the situation and that the horse is happy’. Absolutely! Is there any need for it to be anything other than simple?

      KFH’s books and videos have also helped us and our horses enjoy each other’s company. Now that he has barred us from attending his course, I am doing what I did in the past: I am going back to his books and videos. It is indeed amazing to see what can happen.

      Love to you too from both of us.

      Take care!
      Andrew

  6. Lynne Gerard says:

    Andrew, you have put a lot of effort into your comparative analysis of Dancing With Horses and The Horse Seeks Me! It is interesting how we humans process information and channel our learning experiences into meaningful actions. That something useful may emerge from such cerebral calisthenics is often by happy accident and the “ah-hah!” moments typically occur spontaneously when our thoughts (and emotions) are in step with something altogether unrelated. Your having included so many excerpts from Imke Spilker’s book, Empowered Horses suggests to me that it is only a matter of time before you find that the intellectual dissection of the writings of other equestrians has become a “tender trap” (Timothy Leary) and is not nearly as beneficial to you as is connecting with the object of your interest directly at the level of the heart.

    When in the presence of horses, connected at the heart level, the thought of dominance (even the refinement KFH has evolved in his own definitions) as an element upon which to build a relationship is as absurd as thinking within a human-to-human-friendship harmony is only achieved if one is dominant and the other is subservient, (though there are many friendships based on such a hierarchy.) For myself, I prefer relationships that are egalitarian, that operate from a concept of shared leadership which flows back and forth depending on whatever situation two beings find themselves in. Can one find true self-actualization if one is always following the leadership of another?

    In your reply to Hannah you wrote: “As you walk, you are aware of the sounds, sights and smells around you, the flesh and feelings within you, the rhythms of those walking with you, and the synchronicity of your steps with the horse whose head is at your side. In that moment, which lasts as long as you allow it, nothing exists other than the immediacy of life at the cusp. It is truly liberating stuff.

    The interesting thing about KFH’s approach is that it is not so much the horse that needs to be trained as the human.”

    These types of beautiful experiences are where I tend to spend the majority of my energies now. It is phenomenal how much better such shared space with our horses (and the rest of all that surrounds us) is at “training” us to be better humans.

    In your reply to Peggy you wrote: “I have come across a number of different interpretations of the relationship between KFH and the horse but none which expresses it quite as well as you have: ‘in very simple terms it means that he is in charge of the situation and that the horse is happy’. Absolutely! Is there any need for it to be anything other than simple?”

    I feel that what KFH is relaying is that we humans need not necessarily be as Peggy summed up “in charge of the situation”, but rather “in charge of ourselves and how we respond in any given situation.” Herein lies the congruency that horses (and other life forms) respond to with such trust and happiness. –I am reminded here also of Frédéric Pignon relaying that he was not always “in charge” of his horses during the Cavalia shows and so the performances would not always be the same, but that the horses were much happier knowing that they could improvise if they felt like it, and therefore the performances were much more appealing and genuine.– It seems that this is what KFH presents to the horses (being in charge of himself, not so much in charge of the horse), but when he attempts to define it and set up a detailed course of “training the human” in ways that facilitate congruent deportment, he instead adulterates the purity of the heart connection. (He appears to even recognize that his training of the human will fall short, if one takes into account what Geerteke has relayed.)

    What is so captivating and relevant in Imke’s writings is that she truly does demystify and simplify the way she interacts/communicates with horses and the experiences she shares are things we can achieve with our own horses without resorting to structuring an academy of learning in the way that KFH has done.

    From Imke Spilker’s book Empowered Horses:
    “Nurturing the relationship according to the horse’s rules and in the horse’s rhythm, I try, despite all our differences, to show my affection, to offer myself to the horse as a friend, as a companion.” (pg.10)

    “Togetherness is the basis for understanding between horses who wish each other well. They share feelings and adapt themselves to one another. Something a single horse notices can move the whole herd. Our relationship with a horse begins when we achieve this feeling-based connection and take the horse’s point of view. We ask him, ‘How do you feel about this?’ […] “Togetherness is the foundation from which everything else proceeds. Togetherness–not hierarchy–puts us on the same level. Togetherness is the prerequisite for influencing each other from within the depths of our being. And that relates to feelings and movement–horse and person on one wavelength in a dialog of movement.” (pg.28)

    KFH speaks a lot about “coming together” and provides specific types of body language that are designed to facilitate a dialogue between horse and human…but while one can learn to move the body in prescribed manners, that alone does little to generate the meaning and feeling behind the movements, which is what the horses connect with on a level that precedes movement. Intent is what the horse first “reads” when she is assessing whether we are friend or foe, and no matter what accompanying body posture we have, if our intentions are all wrong for the horse, she will not participate in a shared leadership with us.

    Explore more deeply, Andrew, those walks in the forest…and reside in that plane of understanding in all things, and you will find the analytical mind has been replaced with the heart-mind, and from there you will spontaneously know what creative endeavors to engage in with horses, without needing to follow a guidebook.

    It is time now for me to extract myself from my own “tender trap” (…not quite understanding why I have twice now decided to comment so extensively in your blog…)

    • Andrew says:

      Dear Lynne

      Thank you so much for taking the time to pen such a lengthy comment and one which is so pertinent, because it highlights so precisely the difficulties involved in interpreting the writings of others.

      It is precisely the need to connect with the horse ‘directly at the level of the heart’ which drives me to read Hempfling and Spilker, and to try and understand just what it is that they are saying and whether it tallies with what they are actually doing as illustrated in their books. The reason why I, like thousands if not millions of other people around the world, look to these people for guidance is because they appear to have achieved that connection and we are unable to do so, or only partly and at times.

      At the risk of sounding trite, reading the books of Hempfling and Spilker is an intellectual exercise but a necessary one, if we are to understand what they have written. It is an exercise that is complicated by the fact that their books have been translated, a process which can unwittingly create obstacles to understanding due to the choice of words made by the translator concerned. Then there is the question as to whether the original words used by the writer were the most appropriate for the task at hand.

      The use of ‘dominance’ or ‘dominant’ is a case in point. You correctly contrast ‘dominant’ with its acronym, ‘subservient’, whereas I referred to ‘subordinate’ in my article. The curious thing though is that, although ‘dominant’ appears to be a more accurate term for what KFH describes, the horse appears to be anything but subservient in the generally accepted sense. Rather it appears to be empowered and strengthened by KFH’s dominance and, as such, merely becomes subordinate rather than subservient to him.

      I firmly believe that most if not all humans would agree with you that egalitarian relationships, ones ‘that operate from a concept of shared leadership which flows back and forth depending on whatever situation two beings find themselves in’, are preferable to ones in which one of the parties is dominant. Having said this, there is a well-documented temptation to which we humans easily seem to succumb, namely, to transpose our concepts of relationship to other species. It would seem to me that trying to extend the concept of an egalitarian relationship to horses is one such temptation.

      While I greatly admire the relationship which Imke Spilker has by her own account developed with her horses, her suggestion that the relationship she has with them is egalitarian does not tally with the actual description of that relationship in her book. While it is true that KFH has himself admitted that, like Spilker, there are times when he is following and the horse is leading, ultimately it is the human that holds a dominant relationship in relation to the horse in the neutral sense of the term’s dictionary definition (‘dominance’ refers to ‘power and influence over others’).

      Even within Spilker’s paradigm it is the human who has the power to influence every essential aspect of the horse’s care by and interaction with humans, and who does do so to varying degrees, even if less so than KFH. To suggest otherwise is to play loose with the truth and it is in this respect that I find Spilker’s book less helpful. I do not deny that she tries to offer herself to the horse ‘as a friend, as a companion’ but the relationship which she nurtures occurs not in accordance with the horse’s rules and its rhythm but the human’s interpretation of them. The difference is crucial as it reveals the human’s inevitable dominant position in relation to the horse.

      I concur wholeheartedly with your observation that intent is what the horse first ‘reads’ when assessing whether a human is friend or foe. It is through intent that our inner self can become congruent with our body posture. Ultimately, though, the leadership that may be shared from one moment to the next is most emphatically dictated by the human. How the human does this is what ultimately defines his relationship with the horse. And it is in pursuit of this relationship that writers such as Hempfling and Spilker write books on the subject and lesser mortals such as ourselves read them.

      The intellectual process of reading those books and the cognitive process of analysing their explicit and implicit contents are not necessarily obstacles to the spontaneous discovery of what creative endeavours to engage in with horses (although they can become so if we allow them to, as you correctly point out). On the contrary, they can serve as exceedingly useful tools to enable us to achieve precisely that.

      The very existence of such books, your blog and ours is evidence that intellect and feeling can not only co-exist but also that the former can facilitate the latter.

      Be well!
      Andrew

  7. Heather says:

    Andrew, what Peggy has written makes me think of what Klaus expressed when we were over there – that he needs to convey to the horse that he is the leader – but also if necessary, he would die for the horse (and mean it!). He is able to communicate this to the horse, and I think that is why we see such an amazing connection. They are very happy with his leadership and know that they are safe and protected.

    • Andrew says:

      Dear Heather

      It would seem to me that you have expressed the essence of the dominance that KFH refers to and its ability to elicit the horse’s trust. As Lynne puts it, it is the human’s intent which is crucial. Amen!

      Take care!
      Andrew

  8. Lynne Gerard says:

    Again, Andrew, you deliver a compelling explanation for your chosen path of intellectualizing the horse/human relationship and one that is well articulated as always. From your point of view, I can comprehend your reasoning, however, certain things you have written prompt further commentary from me, with your indulgence appreciated.

    “I firmly believe that most if not all humans would agree with you that egalitarian relationships, ones ‘that operate from a concept of shared leadership which flows back and forth depending on whatever situation two beings find themselves in’, are preferable to ones in which one of the parties is dominant. Having said this, there is a well-documented temptation to which we humans easily seem to succumb, namely, to transpose our concepts of relationship to other species. It would seem to me that trying to extend the concept of an egalitarian relationship to horses is one such temptation.”

    “I do not deny that she tries to offer herself to the horse ‘as a friend, as a companion’ but the relationship which she nurtures occurs not in accordance with the horse’s rules and its rhythm but the human’s interpretation of them. The difference is crucial as it reveals the human’s inevitable dominant position in relation to the horse.”

    “And it is in pursuit of this relationship that writers such as Hempfling and Spilker write books on the subject and lesser mortals such as ourselves read them.”

    These extracts from your response demonstrate a perception based on duality, separation and hierarchy. Consider, however, when you begin to perceive all this from a non-dualistic awareness, you gain the “ah-haah” sensation (satori) and realize you actually have no goal to reach, nothing to strive for, no “becoming” etc. –you simply recognize that you already “are” and nothing needs to be done except to “be”. In that state of awareness there is no difference between Hempfling and you, no difference between the horse and you…no difference between the wind in the trees and you — and from such a perception gnosis spontaneously occurs making all else rather superfluous.

    You can “follow the path” with the hope of arriving, or you can “live the way” and know you are already there. I think both Klaus and Imke “live the way”. Imke writes about the way and urges us to live it as well. Klaus is a bit conflicted, he writes about the path and pushes us to follow it. Can you appreciate the difference?