Introduction

If you have ever visited an osteopath, you may have experienced this situation. The guy
puts his hands on your body, closes his eyes, lowers his head, remains silent for a while, you feel
something happening where the contact is, although it is not clear if it is a minimal movement or
an energy or just a sensation, and after a while he asks you if you fell off your tail a while ago, if
you go to the toilet well, or if you experienced an intense emotional event five or six years ago.
You know he's hitting the nail on the head and you don't know if it's magic or if it's really all so
obvious in your body that it can be perceived with a minimal touch.
There is no magic. By placing their hands on the body, moving a joint or standing still
with their hands wrapped around the skull, the osteopath can detect movements, tensions and
internal processes, as well as their causes, whether they are traumas, pathologies or remnants of
emotional events. He can also understand the usual physiological tactics and strategies of this
body and glimpse the chain of actual and potential homeostatic mechanisms and identify areas
where they might not be functioning properly, and also determine where new anatomical,
membranous and fluidic balance points could be established so that the body can recover its state
of health.
All of that is possible thanks to heightened sensitivity (developed through years of
perception practice), a unique perspective, and a thotough understanding of how the body
functions, considering anatomy and physiology in both etiological and teleological terms, and
relating what is felt with what is known. That's listening.
This book is about that listening. What it is, what happens in it both physiologically and
phenomenally, its purpose, the factors that facilitate it, how it is learned. Like many books, this
one has overt operational goals and more covert strategic ones.
The overt goals are:
- To explain what listening is and what are the phenomena that define it and promote it.
- To explain what osteopathy is (for those who do not know and for osteopaths, because it
is always good to know someone´s else definition in order to refine one’s own).
- To show why listening is the hallmark of osteopathy.
- To show why listening places osteopathy in a privileged position in the current
paradigmatic field of health.
- To dmystify listening as magic and redirect it so that it does not encroach on the
foundation of osteopathy, which is the clinical reasoning proposed by Andrew Taylor Still.
- To provide advice on learning and execution.
My belief is that osteopathy has decreased in effectiveness and potency. This is due in
part to political factors, such as the changes that the AOA had to implement to align with the
Flexner report, but also to an epistemological issue: the incorporation of listening.
 Listening was born after osteopathy and, when it was adopted, it could not be fully
integrated. Listening is so powerful, so ineffable, that it often tends to occupy places that do not
belong to it. The mystification of listening makes us forget the foundations of osteopathy, which
are the guidelines proposed by Still. It is therefore necessary to desintanciate listening as an
independent entity, to be able to think like Still. And osteopathy needs to go back to thinking like
Still.
So yes, I'm talking about listening and osteopathy. However, the subtitle of the book is
"Zen in the Art of Osteopathy", and with that I try to add it -not very modestly- to a series of
other books that seem to refer explicitly to a subject or a discipline, but with the underhand
intention of exposing more pretentious ideas. I refer to Zen in the Art of Archery, by Eugen
Herrigel, Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig and Zen in The Art
of Writing, by Ray Bradbury. These three books talk about archery, motorcycles and writing, but
only as an excuse to convey a philosophy. In the same way, I try to talk about osteopathy, but
only as a framework to achieve other goals, which are:
- To discuss and adopt innovative ideas about perception, cognition, learning and
experience.
- To define some new concepts for the models of homeostasis and allostasis, going a little
deeper than the Sterling model, departing a little from McEwen's development and opening a
new branch parallel to Koob's, and try to define, on the base of these new concepts, the new
paradigmatic model of health that is currently being established.
- To outline a new concept of health that differs from the established one both in its
objectives (not to repair problems or restore a previous state, but to accompany a process of
transformation), in its scope (body, mind and emotions, considered as a psychosomatic unit) and
in its method of treatment (enhancing and unlocking the intrinsic mechanisms of the organism,
instead of introducing external elements or processes such as medication or surgery). These
dimensions are what I will call the ethiopathic, holistic, cybernetic, idiographic and autopoietic
approaches to health practice.
- To list some skills that we believe are essential for a fulfilling life, but are in decline due
to the current epistemic situation. In particular, promote analogue balance against digital
polarisation.
- Show how listening restores these skills.
- To show how, thanks to these new skills and conceps, one can rebuild oneself.

Definition of osteopathy

We are going to talk about listening, but this topic is closely linked to the definition of
osteopathy. It is not easy to define osteopathy, especially because the official definition has
changed over time, and because the official definition given by some institutions is not exactly
the one that is practiced. Although officially the concept of the osteopathic discipline has been
modified, the original, more holistic concept is often still practiced de facto, not to say secretly,
but somewhat removed from the teaching programs and what is conveyed in official
communications. This situation gives raise to the strange peculiarity that it becomes difficult for
any osteopath to explain what osteopathy is. Among ordinary people, on the other hand, the most
diverse ideas are installed: some think osteopaths are some kind of wizards, others associate it
with Reiki, and some think it only helps with spinal issues. Some believe it involves cracking the
bones, while others think it's about laying on of hands and channeling energy. Some believe it
means touching 'essential points', whatever they may be. But in truth, nobody has it entirely
right. Osteopathy is not a collection of techniques, but a distinct philosophy that approaches the
body in a unique manner, with a focus on health and how it can be perceived.
So let's start at the beginning: what is osteopathy?
I'm going to start with a definition to avoid what happens to me with my aunt Fefe, who
every time I start talking about osteopathy interrupts me to ask me what it is. I am not going to
delve into the techniques or basic knowledge of osteopathy, but I am going to delve into the
principles of its practice, because they are the ones that characterize it and at the same time
consolidate the change it causes, so we are going to approach it from a definition. I know that
many who read it will say "okay, but..." And then they will suggest taking out some concepts,
adding others, and changing several of the words. It is the ideal attitude. Part of becoming an
osteopath is creating your own definition of osteopathy and, above all, keeping it alive.
Let's start with a Tentative Definition. I clarify from now that I do not like it, but it is a
first approximation. In just a few pages we will begin to transform it as we go through some of
its components. Here goes:
Osteopathy is an art and a science of health that uses manual techniques for the
diagnosis and treatment of mechanical problems of the organism and its influence on general
health.
This definition is very correct, and in fact I built it as an amalgam between the definitions
proposed by two of the most renowned osteopathic institutions, one American and one English.
What is puzzling is that it leaves out all the things we would expect to find, which we consider
the very soul of osteopathy: concepts that should be closer to a different view of health and
disease, to a particular stance in relationship with the other, and to a characteristic way of
feeling. There is nothing in this definition that hints at that seemingly magical phenomenon that
we narrate in the first scene. None of the principles of osteopathy, which are the ones that found
it in its unity and difference, seem to be represented in this definition. According to this
Tentative Definition, an osteopath seems to be a kind of technician.
Let's examine it a bit.
For example, I want to dwell for a second on that "it is an art and a science". Today, the
word "art" refers to creative people in colored aprons, and the word "science" to cold people in
white coats doing experiments in a laboratory. Stereotypes aside, in original usage, "art" actually
refers to a type of knowing about how to do something , while "science" alludes to a kind of
knowing about something.
Both concepts are based on the two basic types of memory: procedural and declarative.
 Procedural memory is what is commonly called a "skill." It is the knowledge about how
to do certain things, and the best known examples are those of physical activities such as cycling
or swimming. The procedural memory is acquired with practice, and in general it takes a series
of repetitions for the competence to settle. Knowledge stored in procedural memory is difficult to
express verbally, and is learned through experience.
Declarative memory is what comes to mind when we talk about "knowledge": a
repository of facts and data. The declarative memory is symbolic, and the information is stored
in the form of propositions to which a value of true or false can be assigned, unlike procedural
memory, where what is stored are procedures, and the attributions of truth or falsity do not make
sense. Declarative knowledge can be verbalized instantaneously, and is learned by explanations,
either in a class or from a book.
In general, the use of declarative knowledge requires slower execution. When learning to
play the piano, for example, at first all we have is declarative knowledge: what our teacher told
us about which fingers to move and when. When we play in that first stage of learning, the pieces
of music come out slow and error-prone and usually not too enjoyable. But with practice, I can
turn that knowledge into procedural, which means I no longer need to think about which muscles
I should send motor commands to. The master's degree consists mainly of procedural knowledge.
At that advanced stage, the execution is fast, less error-prone, and thanks to that, I can even play
with rhythms and accents to make it more pleasurable.
The phrase that qualifies a discipline as a science or an art refers to these two types of
knowledge. There are supposed to be disciplines that are more "science" because their axis is
declarative knowledge. For example, chemistry or physics, but also mathematics or history. On
the other hand, there seem to be disciplines that are more "art", because the axis of knowledge is
procedural and usually goes through a certain skill acquired with practice. For example, playing
an instrument, riding a bike, or speaking in another language. Polarizing this notion, we have that
the scientist is the one who knows things and the artist the one who does things (to polarize, we
have not only to forget that the artist also knows and that the scientist also does, but also exclude
all disciplines that are located in intermediate positions). If we extrapolate a little more, we arrive
at the stereotype of colored and white aprons.
Beyond the extremes referred to by the stereotype, there are many hybrid disciplines that
are distributed along the art/science axis, and require learning of both types. In medicine, the
surgeon must learn both the declarative anatomical and physiological knowledge and the
procedural knowledge of scalpel cutting, visual and palpatory recognition of anatomical
structures and management of operating room personnel. But other disciplines without such a
notorious skill as that of the surgeon also need procedural knowledge. Playing chess, which
might seem like a purely declarative activity, shows characteristics of procedural memory since
one plays better and better as one practices, and cannot explain precisely how or why.
This dichotomy is what the Tentative Definition we present refers to: that osteopathy is
one of these hybrid disciplines, and requires both theoretical knowledge and manual dexterity.
However, it is clear that this is not enough to define it. The reality is that this dichotomy between
art and science is a trap, because it represents an artificial binary that aspires to encompass
everything, and in doing so leaves aside other points of view. The science/art opposition falls
into Cartesian dualism, because it assumes that science is something that is done with the mind
and art is something that is done with the body. Enunciating the two together ("it's a science and
an art"), perhaps wanting to escape dualism, actually reinforces it, because by enumerating the
two possibilities, it distorts other non-binary options1. According to this binary gnoseology, all
knowledge is knowing how to understand or knowing how to do, but I can think of many other
types of knowledge2. In particular, at this moment I am interested in adding two especially,
because they distinguish and define osteopathy: knowing how to feel and knowing how to be.
Osteopathy is not just an art and a science. It does not only imply specific knowledge and own
skills, but also the acquisition of particular ways of being and feeling.

Four pieces of knowledge

Therefore, whoever wants to be an osteopath must learn four things:

Knowing how to feel

The fundamental tool of the osteopath for the diagnosis and supervision of treatment is
what we call listening, which, although it can be associated with the sense of touch, is much
more than a simple palpatory skill. Listen is the phenomenon represented in that first scene of
this Introduction: what osteopaths (and some other manual therapists) do who just by touching
you realize how you are, or something that happened to you, maybe years ago. I do not want to
go into details now, because it takes a whole investigation to see it in depth, but the osteopath
must know how to feel, and there is here a learning that unfolds in all senses of the word feel.
For now let's say that the osteopath, on the one hand, through oriented practice and
repeated, prolonged and deep contact with his patients, develops over the years an increased
sensoperception in his hands that allows him to determine, thanks to touch, regularities and
variations in the structures and movements of the body in different depths and degrees of
subtlety.
But, in addition, the opening of these new channels of connection produces a change that
is no longer merely quantitative but qualitative. It triggers something I call somatic fusion. I am a
listening body, and I am the listening of the body. The nature of sensation changes. The
osteopath feels more, yes, but above all he feels different, and this generates a non-ordinary
consciousness that becomes the cornerstone on which osteopathy rests, because this sensitive
particularity makes it necessary to learn a new way of understanding, doing and being.

Know how to understand

1
In the same way that, in a hairdresser in my neighborhood, the sign "we accept men and women" hides, in its
proclaimed openness, a binary conception of individual gender choices.
2
We owe the dichotomy between know-how and understanding to Gilbert Ryle, who introduced it in his book The
Concept of the Mind (1949). So much so that we venerate him for having disarticulated, in that same book, the
Cartesian dualism, and had to introduce this other. Let us clarify that Ryle's original dichotomy is not Cartesian in
itself, but the adaptation that was made of it is Cartesian, especially in this science/art opposition, which is later.
Cartesian dualism was so entrenched that it took this new dichotomy and assimilated it.
 The declarative knowledge of osteopathy includes in principle the same basic teachings
of medicine: anatomy, physiology, histology, embryology, biomechanics, pathology, semiology,
psychology, pharmacology. Know as much as possible about the body. There is perhaps some
difference in focus (osteopathic careers tend to have more hours of anatomy or biomechanics
than medical ones, but fewer hours of pharmacology and almost no internal medicine), but the
basis of the contents and the bibliography are identical.
On the other hand, purely osteopathic theoretical knowledge is included, that is, theories,
concepts, models and practices born from one's own research within osteopathy, although some
of them were assimilated a posteriori by the teaching and practice of conventional medicine,
such as Global Postural Reeducation (GPR), Kapandji's biomechanical teachings, Paoletti's
fascia work or Busquet's muscle chains.
All this basic knowledge is indispensable, and the osteopath must know in detail and be
familiar with the anatomy to be able to do. But from what we have been saying we can already
suspect that the conception of the body is special, that it includes other things beyond the
organism and that, to contemplate it, a different point of view is taken, all that I like to call
Somatic Anatomy and Psychophysiology, which make up a new way of knowing about the body
and its functioning.

Know-how
In addition, osteopaths must learn, like clinicians, the practices of diagnosis and
treatment. It is necessary to be instructed on how to recognize significant elements for the
diagnosis (how to execute such and such a test, how to integrate the signs collected, deduce
irregularities and variations, assemble what I call an etiological chain) and determine a treatment,
and then apply various therapeutic techniques and verify the results. All these are skills that
improve with practice, and that are interrelated forming osteopathic praxis.
In that praxis, there is a special consideration for that which extends into the territory
where body and mind are confused: emotions. The privileged position of the osteopath, since his
primal tool is touch, which develops in that same bordering district between body and mind,
added to the phenomena of somatic fusion and somatic tuning, make the osteopathic treatment
of etiological chains with emotional components particularly effective.

Knowing how to be
Knowing how to be includes what is known as the philosophy of osteopathy, and
comprises a set of formalized principles that should guide the daily decisions of the osteopath
and a particular way of relating. Osteopathy is, first of all, not a praxis or a body of knowledge,
but a philosophy. As Hugo Chiera says: "The important thing about osteopathy is not the
techniques, but the philosophy. If the important thing were the techniques, Still would have
written four books of techniques and not four books of philosophy."
Philosophical principles are repeated again and again throughout the career and in all
books, and it is part of what distinguishes osteopathy from conventional medicine, even if,
curiously, several of the precepts were proposed by fathers of medicine such as Galen or
Hippocrates. Even today these precepts are taught in almost all medical universities, but in the
daily practice and organization of the medical institution, the criteria of efficiency and
utilitarianism of the contemporary world lead to their rapid forgetting. These principles are what
are the foundation of the holistic vision, and we will talk about this in depth.
But in addition to learning and assimilating the principles, a particular way of relating to
the other and to oneself is acquired, which unfolds in conjunction with the development of
feeling. On the one hand, the osteopath is enriched with a conscious knowledge of his
proprioceptors, of how his body is, and then articulates more deeply with himself. On the other
hand, listening and projection make the therapist feel the patient's body as an extension of his
own, or as if he saw the other's body from the same perspective that he sees his own. This
conscious self-knowledge, added to the sensory fusion of the bodies, makes the relationship with
other people take shape in a characteristic way.
And this new model of bonding, this sensory perspective that extends through the two
bodies and infiltrates every nook and cranny, makes the osteopath understand the intimate
connection between different structures and processes, and this understanding grounds,
underpins and enriches the holistic vision of the therapist/patient relationship, of health, and of
human relationships in general.
This holistic view and this paradigm shift in the relationship with the other so profoundly
affects the osteopathic student by undermining so many modern archetypal mandates, that I dare
say that whoever wants to be an osteopath must unlearn and then learn to be in a new way.

Four missions of the osteopath

Therefore, anyone who wants to be an osteopath has four missions: to develop both
increased sensory perception and connectedness, to study detailed basic knowledge about the
structure and functioning of the human body, to acquire a skill for diagnosis, treatment and
everyday clinic, and to adopt a new way of thinking and being. Detailed research is needed to
explore each of these four dimensions. This text is part of that larger investigation, and in that
role it dives into the first of those four paths.
Each of these four dimensions of research should digest and regenerate a part of the
Tentative Definition of osteopathy, in the same way we did with "science and art." I repeat here
briefly that Tentative Definition of osteopathy that did not convince me:
Osteopathy is an art and a science of health that uses manual techniques for the
diagnosis and treatment of mechanical problems of the organism and its influence on general
health.
In the first dimension (the one partially explored in The Body and Listening), which
takes the path of knowing how to feel, we are going to talk about listening, which does not even
appear in the definition we introduced, although it is the most characteristic of osteopathy. Any
definition of osteopathy that does not name the listening, or that does not even suggest that
increased sensitivity, sins not only of incomplete but of erroneous; It is not defining osteopathy
but something else. We're going to have to add listening.
 In a second dimension (barely hinted at in this book), when examining the paths of
knowing how to be, it is necessary to see that speaking of "problems" (where the Tentative
Definition says "diagnosis and treatment of the mechanical problems of the organism")
represents a paradigm of health that it is necessary to deconstruct. And we will also criticize that
of "its influence on general health", not because we disagree, but because it does not have the
appropriate weighting. As it appears in that Tentative Definition, it seems an addition that the
definitor decided to include at the last minute with the intention of finally giving it a holistic
touch, but let's agree that it is a crude attempt. Osteopathy is holistic first and foremost, and the
whole definition should be integrated into a holistic conception of health, and it is not enough
with a definition that offers a wink in the final blow.
In the third dimension, which would run through the basic knowledge, we would need to
expand that of "mechanical problems of the organism". In principle, we could accept the concept
that osteopaths deal with mechanical issues simply because they are guided by restrictions of
movement, but we must bear in mind that the causes of dysfunctions extend far beyond the
purely mechanical realm. In this sense, "organism" is a misleading word; It seems to encompass
more than "body", but in reality, thanks to its mechanistic reference, it manages to get rid of that
uncomfortable entity that emotions are. Emotions are expressed in the body, but not in the
organism. That is why we prefer to stay with "body", which includes not only what occupies
place and is touched, but also emotions and other entities that unfold on the border between the
material and the immaterial. For us, the body is the flesh, the mind, and the soul. Everything that
defines us is in the body, and it is necessary to study it from the usual experts (the Netter is our
bible), but adopting a particular angle that I call Somatic Anatomy.
In the fourth dimension, which lists the things that need to be done, it is necessary to see
that when the Tentative Definition assures that osteopathy uses "manual techniques" it is as brief
as when my aunt Fefe says that Uncle Patan, her brother, fixes everything with a nail and a
hammer, when in fact he is a carpenter and has the best provided toolbox I saw in my life. It may
be acceptable to talk about manual techniques to differentiate oneself from conventional
medicine and immediately awaken the idea that this therapy does not focus treatment on either
chemical medication or surgery, or even to warn new patients that some body contact will be
required. But, while it is true that the osteopath uses manual techniques (orthopedic tests,
functional tests, thrusts, muscle energy techniques), some fundamental procedures for diagnosis,
such as listening, and some central methods for treatment, such as induction, require, to define
them, a much broader effort than simply calling them "manual techniques".
 The Tentative Definition that I included there at the beginning is representative of the
ambiguity produced by the attempt to shift towards a biomedical model. I want to believe that
those who designed it – who are several renowned osteopaths and did not do it in a hurry – know
perfectly well that this definition was very far from what we are as osteopaths. They know that
we don't just treat mechanical problems, they know that to say we use manual techniques is to
see only a little bit of what we do and they know that the holistic view of health is largely about
dismantling that concept of "problems". And, of course, they know that listening is the hallmark
of osteopathy, and yet they decided not to include it.
I think what they wanted to do is strip osteopathy of any mystical thinking, for fear of
being accused of being pseudoscientific or superstitious, and actually ended up falling into the
Cartesian trap and adopting a conception of health that is not holistic, and they came up with a
definition as absurd as the one that said that football is twenty-two guys running after a ball.
Compare it with this excerpt from Still (1908): "Osteopathy is that science which consists
in such an exact, exhaustive and verifiable knowledge of the structure and function of the human,
anatomical, physiological and psychological mechanism, including the chemistry and physics of
its known elements, which has led to the discovery of certain organic laws and healing resources,
within the body itself, by which nature, under the scientific treatment proper to osteopathic
practice, far from all ordinary methods of extraneous artificial or medicinal stimulation, and in
harmony with its own mechanical principles, molecular activities, and metabolic processes, may
recover from displacements, disorganizations, disorders, and consequent disease, and recover its
normal balance of form and function in health and strength."
In that paragraph, Still is not trying to establish a precise definition, so we don't know if
he was trying to include all the important aspects or highlight only some of them. Who does try
to make an exact definition is Guy Hulett, in the manual that was used for teaching at the
Institute at the time when Still was director. There, he says: "Osteopathy is a system of
therapeutics which, recognizing that the maintenance and normal restoration of function are
similarly dependent on a force inherent in protoplasm, and that that perverted function beyond
the limits of self-adjustment depends on a condition of perverted structure beyond those limits,
attempts the restoration of normal function by manipulative measures designed to render the
organism that assistance which it provides. allows to overcome or adapt to the disturbed
structure".
These two historical references, if we manage to avoid sumptuous prose and
anachronistic notions and see beyond some extemporaneous references and a little rigorous style,
are closer to the idea we want to convey.
Nor is it a question of demonizing those who devised definitions close to that Tentative
Definition. They were pressed by health insurance and struggled to adapt to be accepted, but they
had the nobility to maintain osteopathy as a separate philosophy, with its own principles. It is
true that they needed to negotiate and modify the principles to be accepted, but it is also true that
if they had given up completely they would have directly renounced philosophy and accepted to
become a medical specialty. They did not, and their will must be acknowledged. If today we can
suggest returning to the original principles it was because his concessions allowed osteopathy to
survive at a time when the biomedical model was strong and destroyed or absorbed everything
that opposed it. Today, when the monster loses strength, we can re-poke our heads and insist on
what we said in the past: a different model of health is possible and necessary. You have to start
seeing the body as a unit. You have to start respecting the provisions of the self-healing process.
You have to pay more attention to the patient than to the disease. The causes of any affliction
must be sought, and not merely classified. It is necessary to identify the internal pathways of
exchange of mechanical, nervous or fluidic energy and information. It is necessary to restrict the
use of drugs, which are often opposed to the processes of the body, and to point out that there are
other means of healing that are not chemical.
The definition of osteopathy is more on the side of cultivating listening, connecting with
the other from deep down, falling in love with the body as a whole, and helping others to be well.
A definition that includes all these concepts cannot be concise, because it must shake many
entrenched paradigms. As Caroline Stone (2000) says:

"There have been many attempts to produce a definition of osteopathy that encompasses
all elements in a comprehensive and easy-to-understand proposition. This has provided many
variations on a topic, none of which are completely satisfactory to all stakeholders (and many
are not overly understandable if left unexplained). Osteopathy seems somewhat elusive for short,
snappy sentences. So a strict definition is not the most useful starting point when introducing
osteopathy to prospective students or anyone interested in osteopathic work."
(Stone, The Science and Art of Osteopathy)

Caroline Stone also says that, in a way, there are as many osteopathies as there are
osteopaths. By its very essence, there must be as many osteopathies as patients. So the number of
possible definitions are the product of the number of osteopaths times the number of patients.
Many. However, there must be something in common in all of them.
I intend to build, throughout this multidimensional exploration, my current definition of
osteopathy. It will take us many pages, and will probably change as the paragraphs and chapters
go by, but it is necessary to understand what osteopathy is to perceive why it can become a
bastion in this contemporary paradigmatic change and why it produces such a radical
transformation in those who approach it.
Let's start with the first modifications to the definition. For now we know that osteopathy
does not seek to eradicate diseases but to achieve an optimal degree of health, understood as a
functioning of well-being. We also understand that it is based on a holistic model of health and
the human being. In addition, we note that it is complete, in the sense that it deals with both
diagnosis and treatment. With that little data, we can sketch a skeleton for our definition:
Osteopathy is a medicine that seeks to guide the person towards the functioning of
maximum possible well-being from holistic models of diagnosis and treatment.

We are not happy, of course. It is very vague, it is incomplete, and it does not represent
the essence of osteopathy, but it is only a first step. We reformulated the Tentative Definition we
had so that it is not so obsessive and now we have a Definition A little less conciliatory although
still Tentative, but we are going to have to complete it. There are still many aspects that we need
to include or specify.
In principle, we lack listening, which we already said was fundamental, but we cannot
include it until we explain it. Listening is so powerful, it tilts the paradigmatic axis of knowledge
so much, that it is necessary to analyze it in all its details, phenomena and vicissitudes.
The Body and Listening is an invitation in that direction.