This quote got me considering this morning. EFT Tapping is not something I’d call “natural” as an approach. Perhaps that is what it is considered a “technique.”
So too many of the conscious practices we explore together. They are concepts that lead to a structure that lend themselves to techniques / approaches that when they DO become second nature (automatic even), we can more easily live the thriving lifestyle we want to cultivate.
Interesting. I’m so inclined these days to throw EVERYTHING under the lens of evolutionary biology…at least my impoverished understanding of evolutionary biology. It, for me, is maybe the master key to decoding and understanding human behaviour. So, I ask myself, what would be the evolutionary biological purpose of ‘technique’ if it’s not natural.
How about this: the process of ‘Technique’ begins with the recognition of patterns that are then organized into a format that is repeatable and predictable and then used toward a desired end result. So, in my definition ‘technique’ is not a thing as the noun would imply, it’s a process…techniquing.
EFT is an example of humans over time recognizing these points on the body that are natural to want to touch for comfort…over time a pattern is recognized and then organized into a repeatable format…a technique.
Perhaps looking at the quote, “unnatural” could mean “fresh approach” and second nature means it evolves to become natural.
Darn slippery words!! I wonder what the author means by ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’. I’m not even completely sure what I mean when using those terms…ha!
Is ‘natural’ to an individual different than ‘natural’ to our species? Does the term ‘natural’ imply two different things in those two contexts? There are skills and gifts that seem natural to some and not to others. Some people are just born, it would seem, with great technique on a musical instrument and need very little if any further refinement. Some individuals have a natural technique for running long distances and others have no skill with it. So maybe ‘technique’ is what would help to be defined by the author…??? I offered a definition but I don’t know whether Seth Gordon’s idea of technique would fit with mine. Am I overthinking this…probably? It is my nature it would seem… 
To me his words were/are an invitation. Unnatural perhaps implies awkward? And awkward is okay, and eventually can lead to second nature… that it works and becomes part of our skill set.
Yes, I agree with you…that was the meaning of what he wrote. I was just trying to parse the language a bit more to see what would turn up for me. It seems that even when I understand the general notion of what is being communicated I can still have this niggling desire to dissect a little further.
I do not enjoy dissecting animals (which convinced me I would not make a good physician/surgeon) but I sure do enjoy disserting a good concept or notion! See the component parts and the systems and processes they support!
I really enjoyed biology in high school…we had to do a few dissections which I thought were pretty cool. The smell of formaldehyde is still in the nostrils of my memory…yuk!
Yeah, I was so allergic to it that I ended up in Biology 2 writing my first computer book rather than do the dissection (and the teacher let that be my project so still got an A in the class. I did have to do the non-dissection exams). Changed my life to start publishing then!
