Let's discuss FEEL.

Well this thread should provoke some posts. Well done Kevin.

Quote
we need to observe the horse and learn to feel of him and help him feel of us. To get the idea of feel, the horse handler needs to understand how the horse exists and survives in the world, which is through his senses. When it comes to cooperating with the human, we're talking about the feeling the horse has in every square inch of his hide and all through his mind, as it relates to a human touching him directly or in directly. (and perhaps “by not touching him at all but by watching and listening”)
Unquote

Dorrance is trying to explain a philosophy. ie his concept of how to work with and get to know a horse and its psychology. He is using the word ‘feel’ in more than one of its meanings. In the Collins dictionary the verb “feel” has 15 different meanings.
1 to perceive by touching
2 to have an emotional sensation
3 to examine by touch
4 to try to find one’s way by cautious exploration
5 to seem in respect of the sensation ie “it feels warm”
6 to sense ie “to feel it in one’s bones”
7 to consider and/or believe
8 to show sympathy and compassion towards
9 to “feel up” - to touch with a sexual connotation
10 to have an inclination for ie “to feel like”
11 to feel up to ie to be fit for doing something
12 the act or instance of feeling
13 an impression of something perceived through feeling ie “a homely feel”
14 the sense of touch
15 an instinctive aptitude or knack.
The noun “feeling” as only 13 meanings - mostly in line with those of the verb listed above. Some English language speakers will use the word “feel” as both verb and noun (instead of using the word “feeling”)

So what we read are the words of a very competent horseman, Dorrance, who with the help of a co-writer is trying to put across a complex issue which elsewhere would be under expressed by the use of the word “feel” only. Dorrance is expanding the meaning of the word “feel” as it applies to horses.

Therefore “ the feel of him” is not just how he feels to the touch rather it embraces the nature of the horse . And vica versa by touching the horse we humans give the animal some clue as to our own attitudes towards horse and our horse in particular.
“To get the idea of feel” is used by Dorrance to suggest that the word “feel” has a very broad range of uses when used in connection with horses . We as individuals must discover all the ways in which the word can be used to describe the emotions of a horse. Looking at the list I can see only one meaning which might not be applicable for use with horses - No 9

“about the feeling the horse has in every square inch of his hide and all through his mind” An interesting choice of words. He uses “hide” instead of ‘body’ - he uses “mind” instead of ‘brain‘. If the reader had heard the words spoken instead of written, then maybe the concept would have been easier to understand - any attempt by the likes of me to translate exactly and correctly are difficult without watching and hearing the man actually say the words - even though I believe I understand and indeed accept what he is trying to say/write/promote.

The books of both Dorrances are difficult to read and accurately understand partly because both men are speaking straight from the ‘heart’ as the words come out of the mouth. The co-writer has copied the words down as spoken without making a great attempt to make sure that the reader understands correctly what has been written. One wonders if perhaps a Dorrance book would be a good one for a student of literature to study.

It certainly would be appropriate to make the extract taken by Kevin from the book as the subject for a lecture/surgery/demonstration in an arena together with a horse.

My own contribution to this thread would be to suggest that the readers get out their own dictionaries, they look up “feel” & “feeling” and then ask themselves how each listed meaning can be applied to their own(human) relationship with their own(equine) horse.

I think Dorrance could have said that we should learn to feel our horse without necessarily using our fingers.

Barry

Good question Kevin - a bit heady for after lunch - best considered before midday. Remember I don’t speak or write quite the same language as you guys.

PS How does this concept fit alongside the idea that horses and humans should have “space” - a subject we have already discussed.

Honeysuga

As you know I am English - yet this is predominantly an American Forum. When writing as a guest, I must be careful not to cause, even unwittingly, offence. There are several versions of English and even Microsoft asks their customers to choose whether they want the American English version or the UK version. The US English version is more widely used partly because there are five Americans to every one Briton.
Expressed in very simple terms there is the traditional example of: 'elevator'/US and 'lift'/UK - different words but same meaning. As an opposite, sometimes we use the same words but for different meanings.

My Collins dictionary lists 11 versions of English in the preface and they don't include in that list American English - of which there is more than one version,

Spoken English of any version is delivered along with intonation of the voice, facial expression, hand language, body language and facial language. Each of these facets of non verbal communication can change or even negate the meaning of the words spoken. Tom Dorrance’s words were recorded by his co-writer but obviously the non verbal communication was not recorded at the same time for the book. Dorrance made some of his points by inference and deduction rather than by spoken word. It is not always possible for me to read and accurately translate what he was saying. The Dorrance referred to in this thread is I believe his brother but no doubt they were brought up to speak the same version of American English.

Writing to convey an exact meaning in horse terminology of a word like “feel” can be difficult, especially if it is a language used around the world and is to be universally understood.
Actually I read Tom Dorrance regularly and I believe that largely I follow his philosophy of thinking in horsey matters.

For me the English language both spoken and written, is a fascinating subject although French was traditionally used in days gone by Diplomats. It was believed that it was more accurate to use the French language in diplomacy rather than the English language, especially when a precise mutual understanding needed to be reached in any written agreement. Spoken English especially, of any version, is not an exact language.

As a Briton I believe I understand what the American Dorrance is saying about “feel” but I am still not 100% sure. One thing I must quickly say - I meant no offence nor any slur and if what I wrote gave that impression to my American hosts, then I must apologise. But in doing so, perhaps I make my point.

Barry G