Chaos
In 2010 Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling published a book called It is Not I Who Seek the Horse, the Horse Seeks Me, in which he rejects conventional and natural horsemanship, proposing instead a way which facilitates the free development of the horse. Ten years earlier Mark Rashid had already done the same in essence, when he released a book entitled Horses Never Lie: The Heart of Passive Leadership. Both horsemen seek to help humans avoid or overcome the cycle of chaos that can engulf them if they treat the horse as a forced subordinate instead of a willing partner. The question though is whether both writers present an approach which also offers a solution when chaos creates a dangerous horse or which can even prevent such chaos from occurring.
Forced Subordinate or Willing Partner
For years now I, like many other humans, around the world have been seeking inspiration for my dealings with horses in the books, videos and articles of Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling. I was particularly inspired by The Horse Seeks Me. In this book he rejects the conventional approach to horses with its reliance on force and violence or the threat of either. He also rejects the natural horsemanship approach with its reliance on psychological oppression. Instead, Hempfling proclaims a third way: the ‘way of the knight: being and trust’ (The Horse Seeks Me, p. 61) as part of which ‘the person becomes the central support for the free development of the horse’ (The Horse Seeks Me, p. 63).
Unlike Hempfling, Rashid finds his inspiration not in humans but in horses. In Horses Never Lie he notes that in many herds it is possible to find a horse which other horses choose to follow. Natural horsemanship is based on a similar view. But whereas natural horsemanship assumes that it is the dominant ‘alpha’ horse which becomes the accepted leader of a herd, Rashid denies that this is the case. He notes that dominant horses are feared but not followed. Instead there are other horses that have certain qualities which lead the herd to choose them as leaders. These qualities are ‘quiet confidence, dependability, consistency and a willingness not to use force’ (Rashid, p. xiv). And it is these qualities which a human needs to develop, if his horse is to seek him out as its leader. Rashid describes this approach as ‘passive leadership’.
Whereas Hempfling treats conventional and natural horsemanship as two distinct approaches, Rashid barely recognises such a sharp distinction, choosing to refer to them as examples of full or partial alpha domination respectively (Rashid, p. 15). The main distinction we have to contend with, according to Rashid, is making the horse do something as opposed to giving it a choice or, put another way, relying on the mechanistic use of techniques rather than feeling based on trust. It is the difference between doing something to a horse and doing something with it. In the former case the horse becomes a subordinate that is forced to do something as opposed to a partner that is willing to do it (see Rashid, pp. 145-69, Jo’s story in particular).
Similarities
There is much that Rashid and Hempfling have in common in their approach to horses and their interaction with humans. For instance, both insist that a human can only be a true leader to a horse, if it seeks the human and chooses to follow him. The human’s qualities and attitude are everything and it is those qualities which invites the horse to trust the human. Both warn of the dangers of fighting the horse, which can only result in chaos eventually. Hempfling proclaims that less is more, as does Rashid, although he is more inclined to refer to this in terms of passivity and softness. Both horsemen view ‘healing’ (Hempfling) or ‘helping’ (Rashid) as important steps on the way to cementing the relationship between horse and human. It is part of being dependable or trustworthy. As Rashid puts it, ‘The key thing then is to find a way to get horses to see you as the individual who can help them when they need it’ (Rashid, p. 74).
Given so many similarities, it is tempting to ask whether Hempfling had ever read or seen Rashid before he wrote The Horse Seeks Me. After all, Horses Never Lie predates Hempfling’s book by a decade.
Hempfling’s first parallel
Indeed, the similarities even extend to what Hempfling describes as the ‘first parallel’ (which is unfortunately translated from the German as ‘first parallelism’ in The Horse Seeks Me). When telling the story of the Arab stallion, Marouk, Hempfling describes the first parallel as follows:
Basic trust is created after a few moments. From there, horses follow me very precisely with a natural conistency and at a slight distance. They stand when I stand, and walk when I walk.
(The Horse Seeks Me, p. 79)
Rashid recounts a similar experience with a grey gelding called Traveler (American horse, American spelling), another victim of natural horsemanship training. He describes the scene as follows:
It seemed clear that he was looking for a little reassurance and so I slowly made my way up up to him and, as gently as I could, stroked him between the eyes. With that his head dropped, his eyes softened, and he let out a long, quiet sigh. I stood petting him for a moment before stepping back to my spot in the middle of the pen. He quietly followed. From that point forward he would not leave my side. Wherever I went, he went. Whatever speed I travelled, he was right there with me. He wanted badly to be near me but never bumped into me or leaned on me. He stopped when I stopped and moved when I moved.
(Rashid, pp. 71-72)
Differences
This is where the similarities end. Whereas Hempfling attributes the ‘first parallel’ to basic trust, Rashid feels that his ‘first parallel’ had its basis in fear: ‘It was clear that he didn’t want to make a mistake, but more than that, it seemed as though he was trying very hard not to make me mad’ (Rashid, p. 72; emphasis in the original). Is this evidence of what appears to be the most profound difference between Hempfling and Rashid?
Although Hempfling and Rashid are in agreement that trust is absolutely essential, if there is to be any meaningful relationship between horse and human, Rashid insists that there can be no place for domination in such a relationship. Hempfling is more ambivalent. Although he avoids the term, ‘domination’, he insists that any meaningful relationship between a horse and a human can only be based on ‘dominance’ and trust (see Dancing with Horses, p. 20 et seq.). He softens this slightly in The Horse Seeks Me, when he also refers to ‘trust and being’ (see the quote above) but that book too is peppered with references to ‘dominance’ (see my discussion of this topic here).
To Rashid ‘domination’ always involves the use of force, whether it is ‘total domination’ to make the horse do or stop doing something, or ‘partial domination’, which is confined to using force in response to an unwanted or negative response on the part of the horse. Hempfling prefers the term, ‘dominance’, because he argues that being dominant entails dominating the horse without the use of any force at all. In other words, the human dominates the horse psychologically but not physically. Hempfling claims that such ‘dominance’ produces love (‘He who dominates is loved.’ – Dancing with Horses, p. 27). He argues that, ‘If we are with a horse, it is absolutely essential that we dominate him completely!’ The reason he asserts is that, ‘Only then can he concern himself with all the secondary questions of life, arrive at a peaceful state of mind, and find his stability and equilibrium (Dancing with Horses, p. 29).
Rashid explaining passive leadership and softness
Although psychological domination is something which Rashid does not really deal with in Horses Never Lie, it would be difficult if not impossible to find a place for it in the approach he describes in that book. If Rashid’s approach does not allow any form of physical or psychological domination, then it is highly unlikely that we will ever create a dangerous horse, if we were to adopt that approach. We are then left with the question as to whether Hempfling’s approach involving trust and psychological domination (‘dominance’) actually works with every horse. Put another way, does Hempfling present an approach which also offers a solution when chaos creates a dangerous horse or which can even prevent such chaos from occurring? The flip side of this question is whether Hempfling’s approach could actually produce a dangerous horse. Not surprisingly, Hempfling’s books and videos only contain ‘success stories’, so we need to seek the answer elsewhere.
Dominance
In February this year Heather, a dear friend in Australia, commented on my post entitled Horse, Humans, Pignon and Hempfling. In my reply to Heather’s comment I mentioned that after viewing a video featuring Frédéric Pignon’s interaction with his horses I was left with the question as to ‘what is in it for the horse’. This is a question, I wrote, that I had never asked in relation to Hempfling’s interaction with horses until I read Heather’s notes on Hempfling’s difficulties with Cody (renamed Jo-Jack by Hempfling), the young gelding, during the Compact Schooling I course which she had attended at Akedah International in September 2011. I commented as follows:
When Cody suddenly disappeared from the course after numerous lengthy sessions with Hempfling and the students were merely told that his problems had been solved, it was clear to me that the horse had not benefitted from the contact, otherwise the students would have been given an opportunity to see that. Normally, Hempfling seems pretty committed to healing horses and helping them to become strong and happy, so this appeared to be a bit out of character. I suppose not even Hempfling can be perfect all of the time. But what about the horse? It is supposed to be with him for the entire one-year school.
What about the horse? Cody did not reappear during the remainder of Compact Schooling I. Nor did he appear during Compact Schooling II or III. It was as though he had disappeared. In late November 2011 another of Hempfling’s One-Year Schooling students wrote the following on her travel blog:
Ik verzorg dus nu JoJack en Romin en heel eerlijk; ik voel ook angst voor ze. Ze zijn groot en sterk. Beide paarden hebben hun problemen en aangeleerd gedrag (ze zijn gewoon absoluut niet makkelijk).
(My translation: So I am now looking after Jo-Jack and Romin and, to be very honest, I am also afraid of them. They are big and strong. Both horses have their problems and acquired behaviour (quite simply, they are absolutely not easy). – You can find a printout of the original here.)
Vicki befriended Cody’s owner during three courses which she attended together with her at Hempfling’s Akedah International school in 2010. Three days after we arrived in the Netherlands from Australia in April 2011 Vicki and I visited Cody’s owner to attend a scheduled video-conference with Hempfling, the other registered One-Year Schooling students (we were also registered to attend the one-year course) and interested parties (Hempfling was still marketing the course to fill vacant places). Although the video conference was a disaster and did not get off the ground, we did have time to visit the horses. Cody and Romin were standing calmly side-by-side in their field. Romin we were told was difficult but Cody was sweet and green. At no stage was there any suggestion that Cody was a difficult horse. Cody’s owner also insisted that she was not willing to train the horses until Hempfling had the opportunity to do so in Denmark later that year. So what happened to Cody between the time when he left the Netherlands for Lyø in August 2011 and late November 2011? He was on the island all of the time. What changed him from a sweet, young gelding into a monster who inspired fear in his carer? Was this the result of an approach based on ‘dominance’ (psychological domination)?
Dangerous Horse?
Did sweet, young Cody really become a dangerous horse? And if he did, was any effort made to bring in a trainer who is experienced in rehabilitating dangerous horses? There are people in Europe who specialise in rehabilitating difficult and dangerous horses. One of those is Petra Vlasblom, one of Hempfling’s former students, with whom we studied in France at the beginning of this year (see my posts entitled 2Moons: Part 1 and Part 2). She has a good track record and an extensive video history to prove it (I have seen it). Of course, it might seem a bit strange to bring in one of Hempfling’s students to deal with a problem horse on the premises of one of the greatest horsemen in the world. But would this not be preferable to doing what so often happens to dangerous horses here in Europe?
With Noir’s untimely death fresh in memory here in a part of the world where cruelty and untimely death are commonplace for horses, I vainly try to rule out this possibility. The image of dying horses haunts me and the unthinkable becomes thinkable: Is Cody dead? I imagine that he is but somewhere in this dark tunnel of the mind I still manage to find the faintest glimmer of hope. I would like to share it with you. It is here in this poem called Cody’s Song. Ultimately though, I would like someone to assure me that the unthinkable is not true, that Cody is alive, and that his human is learning to dance with him as she once wished.
Hope
There is hope too in Rashid’s words:
In the end, I guess, the only way a horse is going to decide to choose us as its leader is if we can show the horse that we can be dependable. How we choose to accomplish that is up to us. Whether the horse chooses to choose us is strictly up to it.
(Rashid, p. 143)
Essentially, this is all that is required for a horse and human to have a relationship that will enable them to develop and enjoy life together: trust and trustworthiness. It has taken me far too long to let go but now I finally do: there is absolutely no role for dominance in a relationship between horse and human if it is to be a relationship between companions, one that is based on trust and trustworthiness. Yes, I need to offer leadership to my horse but I can only do so if my horse offers me that role.
So can techniques, tools and tack help to prevent chaos? Yes, but not without the relationship, not without trust and trustworthiness. As Rashid puts it:
In the end all we really have is ourselves and our horses. No technique, tool or tack is going to change that. But then, I guess, when it gets down to it, perhaps it never should. (Rashid, p. 169)
Your poem about Cody is terribly haunting and profound – let’s hope that was not Cody’s fate and your fears are unfounded. It is incredibly damning (and makes me feel guilty – have I, in fact, been feeding Cody to my dog?)
I liked your concluding quote by Rashid – it is self-empowering but also makes us completely accountable for the outcome although I am sure there is not one of us who has questioned whether s/he is doing the ‘right’ thing… and, naturally, we are going to get it wrong at times and have to live with the consequences. I am reminded of the saying, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. In short, we need to be very, very CARE-+-full and what you seem to be saying is that we can’t be careful enough and that we are taking on an enormous responsibility.
Dear Ian
The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. Perhaps the reason for this is that everything has stopped at the intention stage.
Still, I would hesitate to insist that we cannot be careful enough, because this seems to imply the need for a complex process of risk assessment and analysis followed by prudent decision-making. When it comes to horses, we humans often tend to sink into a self-made bog of complexity.
It really is quite simple, as I see it. All you need is an unshakable commitment to the wellbeing of the horse and the ability to abandon yourself to that commitment, so as to allow yourself to be guided entirely by your intuition in the moment. To us adults, of course, finding such simplicity sometimes becomes an overly complex process.
Be well!
Andrew
That was a neat and heart-warming reply, Andrew. Things are getting really tight around me and the horses, but I am endeavoring to do my best. My strange guide is something called ‘beauty’ in all this – she is a strange moonlight enhanced muse, but one you lay your life down for. The horses understand this quite naturally and are exceedingly patient with me. For they are her children!
Blessings on your noble endeavors.
Ian
Hi Andrew,
Well I am just home from several days visiting Mel Fleming’s Alchemy Place, where she is holding a month long course. Mel is a brilliant horsewoman and working very much on both the physical and spiritual with horses. I have known Mel for several years, and have watched her follow the spiritual path when she realised there was so much more to horses.
I spent my time there doing readings on the horses and teaching the course participants how to tune in themselves. There were amazing changes in both horses and people – and amazing insights and learning for us all.
So what does that have to do with your writings? Well, interestingly I think about Cody/JoJack a lot. In fact I have been thinking about him the last fews days while at this course – I thought how wonderful if he could have been there – if we could have been talking to him. – I learnt a lot from him while in Denmark and will be forever grateful to him.
I felt quite ill when I read your question – is Cody dead??? Ohhh – I hope not!! We all wish for happy horses. They are great teachers – and I have been reminded of this over the last few days.
I have not read the poem yet, but will do so.
Cheers,
Heather
Dear Heather
Your time at Mel Fleming’s sounds magical. She has obviously travelled a long way from the time when Vicki and Anaiis did a clinic with her in Bangalow, Australia, many years ago.
I suspect that Cody has been instrumental in teaching a growing number of people to rely on themselves instead of any self-proclaimed guru, no matter how well he may be able to dance with specific horses. And I suspect that he will do the same for an even larger number of humans, if his actual fate ever becomes public knowledge.
May your horses continue to teach you as ours do us.
Be well!
Andrew
Yes, Andrew, Codo as you present her is the ultimate challenge, for there will always be a horse that draws us out of ourselves down a path we do not understand. And that experience will make us so vulnerable that we come to kneel before our maker in that horse’s shadow.
Dear Andrew
@poem
Beautiful, Andrew!
@Breaking the Cycle of Chaos
I like your heading – as this is what has been going on all over the world already for many years – even centuries – perhaps even BC!
It is all part of the overall transformational evolution, don’t you think – or rather ‘feel’.
Having created such a huge distance between the present times and the Atlantis times – way back then – with the frequencies/vibrations having dropped to almost nothing with the disappearance of Atlantis/Lemuria, it cannot but anything but take a lot of time before changes can and will start taking place during the same generations so we – now – can experience them as well. And can experience as well that having hope has never and will never be in vain.
A horse being a very sensitive animal will project our – inner – chaos.
In Alexander Nevzorov’s latest book EQUESTRIAN SPORT: THE SECRETS OF THE “ART” he describes in a really good way – I am talking about my personal perception – how horses react to pain and that sometimes chaos/dangerous behaviour cannot be stopped even by pain triggers from ‘tools/equipment’. So that indeed having a trustworthy relationship between horse and human is of the utmost importance to prevent the human or the horse from getting into a dangerous or even lethal situation.
@Instead, Hempfling proclaims a third way: the ‘way of the knight: being and trust’ (The Horse Seeks Me, p. 61) as part of which ‘the person becomes the central support for the free development of the horse’ (The Horse Seeks Me, p. 63).
If I remember correctly Heather responded to one of your previous blogs that KFH ‘would be prepared to give his life for his horse’ this in the light – I suppose – of ‘the way of the knight’.
I would like to tell about an insight I had whilst driving back home after having been with Marcello. A couple of weeks ago. And wondering how amazingly his attitude has changed towards me in the last 3 months. As if he has chosen/decided that I am up to being his leader. Even so much that I can let him graze off the line and having noticed that when I had disappeared behind some bushes I heard him whinny softly after which he came looking for me.
At another instance him spooking, trotting past me but after some 5 or 10 metres turning around to come back to me and continue grazing. I was sort of watching him all the time without any emotion. Just observing. I did ask him where he was going and invited him to come back.
I experience that the more I trust him his trust in me is returned and – I have the feeling – this is vice versa.
So I had this insight about being prepared to give my life for my horse.
I suddenly realised that this had actually happened. After my 2nd accident – midDecember 2011 – that was Marcello-related however with no horse in the vicinity my physiotherapist mentioned that with such an accident one can easily have broken one’s neck. That would most likely have been the end of my dealing with horses c.q. Marcello.
That realisation of having been prepared to give my life brought tears to my eyes.
From that moment on my relationship with Marcello has become even more profound. I have realised that Marcello accepting my leadership gives me space and opportunity to express my feelings, my choices. And even if these feelings and or choices are not liked by Marcello there are times – and that happens rather intuitively – that he just has to do as I say.
Up till now it has not destroyed my leadership. Our connection.
My relationship with myself has become even more profound as well, in that I shall and will not let myself be influenced anymore by any critique. Not meaning though that I will not listen to it – certainly I like to be and stay openminded and continue thinking outside the box.
The passive leader took action – passively with an amount of dominance, meaning that my choice was more important at that moment than any other choice – only just yesterday. Marcello was grazing off the lead in a different environment than his meadow. There was a grey horse grazing on the other side of a fence. Marcello walked up to the grey horse. They said ‘hello’.
On a previous – similar – occasion I had made clear to Marcello that I wanted him to behave genlty. Knowing that Marcello can instanty change into a stallion’s posture with the same behaviour. He looked at me with one eye. That was the weirdest sensation I had that he was looking straight at me with one eye and at the same time gently saying hello to the grey horse. We then walked away.
Yesterday I decided to trust him and not remind him of/ask him for a gentle approach. The gentle approach happened alright. Then there was a continuation of the approach. After all I had not communicated anything. Trusting his intelligence. Intelligent he is. He decided to push a little further. His neck started arching. He started sort of holding his breath. His eyes were all concentrated on the grey horse. And in a split second he yelled, he slashed with one of his front legs. And in the next split second I hit a wooden pole with a sharp slash of the ‘stick’. I ‘yelled’ and Marcello exhaled, dropped his neck, turned around and walked away from the spot. The grey horse walked away as well. Marcello had walked away perhaps some 30 metres when I decided to walk in the same direction. Marcello never made any attempt to get back to the grey horse.
Here there is also the phenomenon of the socalled agression-emotion – ‘movement’ – output from one horse to another horse being neutralized by an agression-emotion input, being represented by hitting the wooden pole and my ‘yell’. Perhaps like KFH does when asking the focus of the horse he is meeting – sometimes for the first time – in the picadero.
Agression-emotion output being neutralized by an agression-input thus creating a depression-emotion output. The latter being a sort of returning to an inner focus and through such inner focus the horse can and will return to the leader.
I would love to get some feedback on/comment/response to this as this is my personal experience.
I would like to respond some more, Andrew, but I will leave it here and come back later, if that is okay with you.
Warmly, Geerteke
Dear Geerteke
You say that you would love to get some feedback on or a comment or response to your personal experience with Marcello. It is indeed possible to engage in a profound analysis of aggression output and input along with their cause and effect. I question though what good this will do.
You are clearly developing a very close bond with Marcello, one which goes well beyond an approach that seeks to find horse-friendly ways of making a horse do or refrain from doing something. The two of you seem to have a relationship based on mutual trust and commitment which expresses itself through communication and understanding. My own instinctive response would be to embrace it for what it is and to nurture it intuitively.
We humans often invite chaos by restricting our horse’s freedom. You seem to be banishing chaos by giving Marcello the freedom to choose. Beautiful!
Be well!
Andrew
Love the last sentiment there and your enhancement of it, Andrew!
Thanks, Andrew :O) take care
Another great blog post and I do agree – Mark Rashid is a fantastic horseman and hence his way of handling horses is hard to explain – how do one explain a feel or a way of thinking, reacting or a heartfelt communication? It has to be discovered within us.
However – one thing I have really thought about is the practice of always comparing the human with a specific horse in a heard (i.e. the characteristics of a specific horse in the pecking order in a heard) – “The dominant Alpha” the “Passive leader” etc – Well, I am not a horse – and I really do not want the horse to see me as one – so is it ok for us to “take on the role or characteristics” as a horse in the heard but at the same time we can not have to horse acting towards us “as a horse would” especially not if the horse IS a dominant-aggessive individual.
Why not see this from a strict human perspective, safety issues included. I want to be me, grounded in myself, making my (human) choices in the interaction with a horse. I want to be as soft as possible, as gentle as possible, as loving as possible – but at the same time I have to take care of my safety, my integrity – and do it in a way that is clear and dependable – even if it may occasionally include something that could be interpreted as “aggression”.
And sometimes I honestly do not know how to do this in “a right” way – I hope I eventually will find my answers…
I am sorry if my language and my way of expressing myself seems a bit childish, my english is far from perfect and that really limits me.
Warmly,
Katarina 🙂
Dear Katarina
It is indeed sometimes difficult to know how to be ‘as soft as possible, as gentle as possible’ and ‘as loving as possible’ while simultaneously trying to ‘take care of my safety, my integrity’ in a way that is ‘clear and dependable’, although it may sometimes be interpreted as ‘aggression’.
Some people do indeed look for guidance by analysing herd behaviour. Whether you choose to do this or not is ultimately irrelevant, I think. If it helps you, fine. If it does not, that is also fine.
In my limited experience a horse generally has a reason for doing or refusing to do something. If you feel a need to protect yourself from your horse at times, then you may want to ask yourself why your horse is acting in such a way that you feel the need to do so. Once you find a way of getting rid of the reason why your horse acts in that way, you will probably no longer need to feel the need to protect yourself from your horse. After all, your horse will no longer have a reason to act in a way which makes you feel the need to do so.
Incidentally, your English is good and there is no need to apologise for it. And even if your English was bad, which it is not, there would still be no need to apologise for it. After all, the only reason why we are communicating in English is because my Finnish is non-existant. In other words, your English is far better than my Finnish!
Be well!
Andrew
Yes Andrew, I realise I was a bit vague about what I mean with “defend myself” I have mostly been working with big, coldblooded mares – strong minded with “strong shoulder line”, and they know it because they are extremely smart horses – and they love to play these “games” with people… who is moving who!? You can not avoid it even if you do not want to play. (and with an unexperienced person they “win” the game every time without the person even realising the game “was on”) 😉
Andrew,
@Cody/JoJack
When walking the dog yesteday afternoon in the Schoorl woods there was a genius that appeared and ‘inspired’ me with the following.
For I am Cody. I am horse. Know me!
In the name CODY there are already 3 letters of the word CODe.
Perhaps an indication that human’s challenge with this horse was or still is finding the code into this horse’s inner linings. And perhaps therewith finding the code to the horse’s human’s inner lining.
Like the code one needs to open a safe.
A safe where very precious things are kept safe.
Sometimes when the code to open a safe is lost it needs a specialist to rediscover and explore this code to open the safe. That specialist is a very special sensitive person. That person has the talent/gift to hear the smallest/tiniest ‘click’ inside the lock. And this specialist knows the difference between this ‘click’ and the other ‘click’.
There was a reason why this horse needed a human to take that time and effort. A human with a lot of sense and sensitivity.
However, what happens. The horse’s name is changed into JoJack.
These are 2 names put together.
Could it be that this horse consist of 2 personalities? Like the Jeckyl and Hyde. Jack has a similar sound like Jeckyl.
What if there was a reason – unknown to our humble perceptions – for 2 horses to be born into 1 body. And the name Cody being an indication to finding the code for this horse to enable it to have a reasonably comfortable life. A process that needs the utmost of patience and sensitivity. For the horse to learn how to live in a balanced way with this kind of split personality.
Instead with the name JoJack could it be that this split personality was being underlined. Allowing each personality sufficient space. Which would not be bad, actually.
However, what if one of these personalities is a very dominant one. The one that doesn’t hesitate to pick up a fight immediately as it it will never ever let itself be dominated. Whilst the other personality hates conflict and would do anything to avoid a fight.
Can you imagine what terrible chaos might evolve inside this 1 body.
Chaos leading to so much stress. A horse screaming to be heard. A human wanting to achieve leadership over a horse that doesn’t want to be lead on one occasion and yearns for a strong but passive leader the next moment.
At the same time the horse reflecting human’s own dividedness. How many people are put in a mental institution labelled as ‘insane’ whilst perhaps the only thing that is wrong with them is that they are so (over)sensitive they therefore have so much difficulty dealing with the world’s insensitivity and chaos.
What if KFH’s blind spot is this dividedness and he needed such a horse to be invited to discovering and exploring his own personal next cycle of transformation.
For I am Cody. I am horse. Know me!
Breaking the Cycle of Chaos
Geerteke
Wow, Geerteke: you certainly went to great lengths and pains to look for an answer to Andrew’s mental construct, the poem. I, for my part, have checked that there is no dog food on sale here containing horse meat. I also had strange dreams – nightmares, but ours is to ‘ride’ the nightmare and work at keeping our horses as happy as possible so that we draw inspiration from each other.
A horse with a split personality does make sense, especially if they have been in contact with people with such a disposition, for personality is not static and is a product of interaction with our environment. Clearly, horses have good memories and can easily be triggered by aspects related to past trauma, can’t they?
Impressed by your dedication
Ian
Thank you Ian.
Like I mentioned in the first paragraph I am honest when I tell about a genius inspiring me.
Of course I could also have called it ‘my intuition’. Or called it a story/an ‘answer’ that welled-up from somewhere deep down inside me like a warm icelandic water well/geyser type thing.
The wonderful thing was it didnot take any effort.
The words just popped onto the screen of my laptop.
And yes …. DEDICATION … yes I am probably very dedicated to what the geniuses sometimes are doing their best for to get me inspired with their ‘stuff’.
Below is a link to an interview with Elizabeth Gilbert, the writer of the mega buster Eat, Pray, Love. Tremendously inspiring, I think and feel. You and all who read this blog – you too, Andrew and Vicky – are invited to be inspired by her as well.
/www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html?source=facebook#.UFs9AlYleX5.facebook
Thank you again, Ian
Geerteke
I love you innocence, Geerteke, despite all the knocks. And so you keep in tune with source and your own essence and that of the horses you so love.
You are no small wonder yourself:-)
Ian
:O)
Take care, Ian !!