Who/what are you? 61-4

[lightofreason]

... I asked "how do you do that" but I have not the urge to make the implicit exclicit. I am just happy about that.
How wrong can be that?
maria

not wrong - limiting. perseverence furthers is a mantra of the I Ching. To work with the I Ching requires commitement to understanding what is going on, to flesh out the details and so habituate to such. Once done so the context will push and you have no need, no instinct, to fight back since the refinement of instincts using the I C makes things simple, easy and no need to refer to the I C text at all.

TO get to that ease and simplicity requires hard work. Thus tossing coins etc will not aid you in that you could end up NEVER eliciting a lot of hexagrams! - Be proactive, review the philosophical/psychological by asking any question you have of EACH hexagram or line or combination of - no magical/random methods just hard work, step by step, mapping of any question to each and every hexagram etc.

If you add-in the XOR material then you have 64 aspects of each hexagram and no moving lines etc involved!

A scientific approach is thorough nd covers all that could be IN GENERAL. THEN comes the grounding, the customisation of such, by you in some context. Soak all of that in and you will benefit greatly. BUT you need to cover all from a 21st century AD perspective (XORIng etc) not the limitations of the 10th century BC.

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

Chung-ni said, “The superior man embodies the course of the Mean; the mean man acts contrary to the course of the Mean.

“The superior man’s embodying the course of the Mean is because he is a superior man, and so always maintains the Mean. The mean man’s acting contrary to the course of the Mean is because he is a mean man, and has no caution.”

The Master said, “Perfect is the virtue which is according to the Mean! Rare have they long been among the people, who could practice it!

The Master said, “I know how it is that the path of the Mean is not walked in:-The knowing go beyond it, and the stupid do not come up to it. I know how it is that the path of the Mean is not understood:-The men of talents and virtue go beyond it, and the worthless do not come up to it.

“There is no body but eats and drinks. But they are few who can distinguish flavors.”

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/c/confucius/c748d/

http://www.hm.tyg.jp/~acmuller/contao/docofmean.htm

Chris.

Chris, why are you now quoting “10th Century BC” to rationalize your interpretation of “superior”?

And, who and where are all these people that you are guiding through their fears?

 

[getojack]

Chris, why are you now quoting “10th Century BC” to rationalize your interpretation of “superior”?

Yes, I was wondering that too. Chris, stop living in the 10th century BC and use some 21st century self-referencing and XORing... I'm starting to think you've had a 10th century brain transplant.

 

[soshin]

Beautiful answer.

Just wanted to express my gratitude for the question and the answer.

And of course for this wonderful dharma combat of yours, Bruce and Chris

Namaste,

Soshin

 

[getojack]

Although I'm not sure what Chris's point was in posting links to the sayings of Confucius, I really don't see how the "superior man" could embody the "doctrine of the mean". I mean, if he was really superior, he wouldn't be in harmony with the mean, but generally above the mean, right? Seems the way to the mean is to swing wildly between superiority and inferiority, thus achieving the mean by default, or to be merely mediocre.

 

[rosada]

Just looking at the titles of the hexagrams gives a meaningful answer: Inner Truth and Youthful Folly. So is the I Ching calling itself a Young Fool but one who is in touch with his Inner Truth?

 

[rosada]

We're on 30.2 over on the Memorization thread which has a lot to say about the meaning of The Mean.

 

[getojack]

Rosada,
I don't think Hexagram 30 says much about the meaning of the Mean... I think that's mostly Wilhelm's interpretation...

Thinking about this some more, Confucius seems to think that it's good to be good and bad to be bad... this seems opposed to the concept of the Mean.

On one side of the coin, if you follow the Mean and it leads you to be good, then it would be superior to the Mean, so not the Mean... so not good, but bad. Therefore, the Mean can't lead you to be good.

On the other side of the coin, if you follow the Mean and it leads you to be bad, that would be inferior to the Mean, so not the Mean... so not good, but bad. Therefore, the Mean can't lead you to be bad.

Apparently the Mean can only lead you to the Mean...

If the Mean leads you to be good, that's not the Mean, and not good, but bad.
If the Mean leads you to be bad, that's not the Mean, and not good, but bad.
But if the Mean leads you to the Mean, that's the Mean, therefore not good and not bad.
QED

 

[martin]

Science, 21th century - I wouldn't make too much of it. Yes, we are advanced in certain areas, blessed even, no doubt. And yet, compared to older cultures it's not all 'progress' and 'maturing'.

If people of some of those cultures could see our buildings or our movies, I think they would be horrified.
Advanced? How so?
Our architecture (with exceptions, fortunately) is rubbish and 90% of our movies is sentimental (or violent, or both) crap!
In many areas we are not advanced at all, we are backward. We are the barbarians, not 'they'.
We are good at cold computer-like intellect, very good, it's our thing, we have specialized in it. But when more than that is required, some real feeling for instance, forget it ..

Can a cold computer-like intellect understand the oracular aspects of reality? Can it recognize meaningful coincidences, patterns of events that are not causually linked? Can it see 'signs'?
No, it can't. It's either completely unaware of such things or immediately rationalizes them away.
Is that mature? Since when is blindness considered 'mature'? Since AD 1685 or so?

As to science, assemble all the scientists of the past centuries that created important breakthroughs. Then look in their eyes. What do you see? What do you find behind those eyes?
Dreamers, childlike minds, souls in awe, that is what you will find.
Who suggested that magic, awe and childlike openness are opposed to science?
Ah yes, of course, mr Lofting again!

 

[lightofreason]

Chris, why are you now quoting “10th Century BC” to rationalize your interpretation of “superior”?

And, who and where are all these people that you are guiding through their fears?

You are a 10th century BC sort of person so all I did was give you something you could understand.

If you want to move into the existentialist/structuralist/post-modern times (20-21st century AD Sartre to Deleuze) I can give you references but I dont think youd 'get it' as much as the 'way of the superior' I mentioned.

As for those living in fear - attempts to divine reflect attempts to predict the future and so pre-empt 'issues'. It covers anxieties etc. Problem solving stems from sensation seeking and covers attempts to map 'bad sensations', to protect, as such it has its roots in fear. Sensation seeking then exploits the maps to get more sensations, take more risks - the reactive becomes proactive in that once identifying the fear we can exploit it to become 'fearless'. ;-)

Problem solving WITHIN identity seeking is covered in 16,35,62,56. For security seeking see 40,64,32,50 For sensation seeking see 53,38,34,14 For problem solving see 51,21,55,30

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Just looking at the titles of the hexagrams gives a meaningful answer: Inner Truth and Youthful Folly. So is the I Ching calling itself a Young Fool but one who is in touch with his Inner Truth?

Rosada, PLEASE focus on the FULL meanings of hexagrams, not the Wilhelm 'limitations'. You will learn more. Consider these chinese associations to the symbols:

04:
MENG : cover, pull over, hide, conceal; lid or cover; clouded awareness, dull; ignorance, immaturity; unseen beginnings. The ideogram: plant and covered, hidden growth"ERANOS p124

or the IDM focus of contractive bounding context in which operates contractive binding - aka contaiment within which operates discernment. Then consider the structural relationships with 07.

61:

"CHUNG FU -

CHUNG : inner, central; calm, stable; put in the center; stable point which enables you to face inner and outer changes; middle line of a trigram. The ideogram: field divided into two equal parts...
FU : accord between inner and outer in a particular moment; sincere, truthful, verified, reliable, in accord with the spirits; capture; prisoners, spoils;..The ideogram:bird's claw enclosing young animals, possessive grip."ERANOS p636

or the IDM focus of expansive bonding within which operates contractive binding aka self-reflection within which operates becoming influencial.

Those GENERALS are then customised to fit local context and they cover a lot more than 'inner truth' or 'youthful folly'. Then consider the relationships with 60.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

...As to science, assemble all the scientists of the past centuries that created important breakthroughs. Then look in their eyes. What do you see? What do you find behind those eyes?
Dreamers, childlike minds, souls in awe, that is what you will find.
Who suggested that magic, awe and childlike openness are opposed to science?
Ah yes, of course, mr Lofting again!

I have NEVER said this - you are blatently lying - distorting perspectives to suit your depression.

What I said was focused on the need to grow up and move past the child and take on responsibilities as adults - which all of those scientists did. I also emphasised that there is STILL awe and mystery as an adult but you seemed to have ignored that to press home you distorted perspective of humanity.

ALL scientists are focused on the CURRENT times or FUTURE times, I have not met any stuck in the 10th century BC - but I have met a LOT of non-scientists who are.

In the context of hex 26, the focus is on USING the past to set down foundations and serve as quality control but NOT to let that take over the present/future, in other words be prepared to drop history so as to escape it and enter 'new' times etc. which is what evolution is about - making symmetry and breaking symmetry - make the 21st century AD perspective and break the 10th century BC perspective - all to our advantage as a species. The fact that you fail miserably to understand that shows how self-limiting you are where that has become habit - you have lost any proactivity and fallen back on being reactive. tsk tsk. - you show fear.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

To learn the I Ching through passive means, through coin tossing etc means you could go through a life without ever fitting a hexagram to a question. If you focused on one toss a day it would require 4096 days to cover all of the hexagrams and that includes no repeats. (365 days in a year so 11 years to cover each dodecagram ONCE))

The proactive format is to apply questions to all hexagrams/dodecagrams and so use one question to flesh out all aspects of the IC applied to that question - no magical/random methods. So "What is the meaning of life" is covered in all 4096 dodecagrams or compressed into 64 hexagrams since the WHOLE of the I Ching applies to any moment and so tells you, presents you with, a full spectrum analysis. To 'get' the I Ching in your lifetime requires you to be active, not passive .....

UCLA<http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/monkeyslearn.jpg>
A rhesus monkey chooses between images on a touch-screen computer monitor. In a new study, monkeys were asked to select five photographs in a particular order.
Credit: UCLA

Monkeys seem to learn the same way humans do, a new research study indicates.

"Like humans, monkeys benefit enormously from being actively involved in learning instead of having information presented to them passively," said Nate Kornell, a UCLA postdoctoral scholar in psychology and lead author of the study, which appears in the August issue of the journal Psychological Science. "The advantage of active learning appears to be a fundamental property of memory in humans and nonhumans alike."

In Kornell's study, conducted when he was a psychology graduate student at Columbia University, two rhesus macaque monkeys learned to place five photographs in a particular order. The photographs were displayed on a touch-screen computer monitor similar to those found on ATMs. When the monkeys pressed a correct photograph, a border appeared around it. When either monkey pressed all five photographs in the correct order, he received a food reward. The chance of guessing all five accurately is less than one percent.

In all, each monkey learned to order at least 18 separate series of photographs, which included such items as a fish, a human face, a building, a football field and a flame from a match. They underwent three days of training before being tested.

In some of the training trials, the monkeys had to figure out the correct order themselves, while in others, they had the option of getting help by pushing an icon in the corner of the screen that caused the border of the correct photograph to flash. They were rewarded with an M&M candy each time they correctly completed the task without help and with a less desirable food pellet when they completed the task with hints from the help icon. After three days, the monkeys were tested without the benefit of the help icon.

"Both monkeys did much better if they had studied without a hint than if they had studied with a hint," Kornell said. "The monkeys did much better on the first three days when they had the help than when they didn't, but on the test day, it completely reversed. When they studied with the hint, there is no evidence they learned anything about the list. They learned the lists when they didn't get the help."

The findings are closely related to findings in humans that recalling answers from memory enhances long-term learning.

"The findings were somewhat unintuitive, because passively using the hint appeared to enhance performance during the study phase of the experiment but had a deleterious effect on long-term learning," Kornell said.

What are the implications for human learning?

"Many people incorrectly assume the better you do as you're studying, the more you're learning," said Kornell, who works in the laboratory of Robert A. Bjork, professor and chair of psychology at UCLA. "If students don't test themselves when they read a chapter, they can easily think they know the material when they don't. When you test yourself as you study, you may feel like you're making it harder on yourself, but on the test, you will do much better. Robert Bjork calls this 'desirable difficulty.' If you want to learn something well, when you're reading, stop and think about what you've read, and test yourself; you learn by testing yourself. If you make it more difficult for yourself while you study, you feel like you're doing worse, but you're learning more.

"Active learning is important in humans and — this study demonstrates — in monkeys as well," he added.

Less effective passive learning includes listening to a presentation and reading without testing yourself or summarizing what you have learned.

"When you summarize the material in your own words, that's much more active," Kornell said. "You can't do that if you don't understand it."

Cramming right before a test does not work as well as spacing studying out over a longer period of time, Kornell added, citing other research on learning and memory.

Kornell's research, supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, was conducted with Herbert Terrace, a professor of psychology at Columbia. The two monkeys, Macduff and Oberon, are housed at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, where Terrace has a joint appointment. Neither animal was harmed in the study, and they were fed daily regardless of how they performed in the trials.

"Many people," Kornell noted, "have had the experience of listening to a computer instructor open a menu and go through a series of steps. Then you try to do it, and you don't even know which menu or what the first step is. If you are passively following along, you won't remember it as well as if you're forced to do it yourself. Active learning is much harder, but if you can do it successfully, you will remember it much better in the long run.

"If you're learning to serve a tennis ball, you won't get much out of an instructor taking your arm and practicing the swing over and over," he said. "That's not going to help you nearly as much as if you serve the ball yourself."

The situation is the same for monkeys, according to Kornell.

"The way the monkeys learn to remember the correct answers is through active learning, like humans," he said. "They have to generate the answers themselves from memory. Generating the correct sequence from memory resulted in more long-term learning than the more passive training with hints."

Kornell noted that more than a century ago, author William James remarked on the importance of being actively involved in learning. Since then, science has proven him correct. Kornell also noted that his research confirms the teachings of another monkey: Curious George.

Source: UCLA
http://www.physorg.com/news105198144.html

 

[martin]

I have NEVER said this - you are blatently lying ........

Nah, nah, Christopher, I think you are developing a serious Martin allergy. Well, I can understand ...

But what are you doing about it? Trying to push his buttons by psychologizing him? That rarely works with a psychologist, of course.

I suggest that you try something else. I will say 'ouch!' when you hit a sensitive spot, okay?

 

[martin]

Active learning, yes, of course. I dont know how old this research is but it's known already for a long time that it works much better than passive learning.
In Holland what we call 'zelfwerkzaamheid' (hard to translate, it means something like 'do it yourself') is very much a part of the educational system nowadays.

There is tendency to overdo it sometimes, though. About ten years ago, the socalled 'studiehuis' (study house) was introduced in high schools. Pupils were given a high degree of independence in that setup. They were treated like postgraduate students, sort of.
"Do you have a question? Go and find the answer, do the research, I won't tell you."

A lot of effort (and money) was put into the 'studiehuis' but it was a complete failure, unfortunately. Pupils got stuck, teachers ('degraded' to on the whole rather unhelpful advisors) became desperate, and so on.
After a while all schools returned to the old less 'active' system.

But I'm digressing. Asking an oracle for advice is not very different from asking an expert or a friend. You can overdo that too, balance is everything (don't nod, you can't know that, you are an Aries! ) but there is nothing inherently 'passive' about it.
Of course, if you believe that oracles give random answers .. but, you know, that's not a fact. It's not science. It's only a belief.

And it will not become a fact even if you repeat 'it's random' on this forum till the end of your days, dear Chistopher. What is this thing you have with repetition? Do you really think that repeating the same thing over and over will, somehow, magically, miraculously, convince people?

 

[bruce_g]

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread.

Chris, if you really want people to actively think for themselves, it might help to let them be themselves: an artist, a child, a 10th century BC philosopher, etc. You can't change anyone but yourself. That's the best influence anyone could hope to have. It's also the hardest thing to do; much harder than telling others how they should be and what they should think.

 

[lightofreason]

Chris, if you really want people to actively think for themselves, it might help to let them be themselves: an artist, a child, a 10th century BC philosopher, etc. You can't change anyone but yourself. That's the best influence anyone could hope to have. It's also the hardest thing to do; much harder than telling others how they should be and what they should think.

Oh look - I pressed a button! tsk tsk.

My point is still valid - to use magical/random methods in using the I Ching will NOT guarantee you cover all hexagrams in the detail required to understand what is going on and how useful it can be. The ONLY practical method is to set a context of a question and apply all of the hexagrams/dodecagram to that question. In doing so you cover the full spectrum of the question and the I Ching and so learn more efficently than 10th century BC thinking.

IF you refuse to acknowledge the benefits then that is your ego talking - your stubbornness to recognise that your current methodology is not helpful - the actions of a dilletante rather than someone seriously involved in understanding the IC - another one lost in the 10th century BC is 'Martin'.

 

[lightofreason]

. What is this thing you have with repetition? Do you really think that repeating the same thing over and over will, somehow, magically, miraculously, convince people?

resistance is futile. You will be assimilated (bruce too)

AS for repetition, as a psychologist one would expect you are aware of the use of rote learning to elicit a rich associative memory - if you are not aware of such, you should be in that it may improve your skills.

 

[bruce_g]

Oh look - I pressed a button! tsk tsk.

So then, when someone responds to what you say, you attribute that to having successfully pushed their buttons? wow.. guess I pushed a lot of your buttons without even realizing it. But I don't think that's how it is. I think there's a difference between responding out of a desire to exchange and communicate, from just reacting. Have you been responding or reacting?

 

[maremaria]

not wrong - limiting. perseverence furthers is a mantra of the I Ching. To work with the I Ching requires commitement to understanding what is going on, to flesh out the details and so habituate to such. Once done so the context will push and you have no need, no instinct, to fight back since the refinement of instincts using the I C makes things simple, easy and no need to refer to the I C text at all.

TO get to that ease and simplicity requires hard work. Thus tossing coins etc will not aid you in that you could end up NEVER eliciting a lot of hexagrams! - Be proactive, review the philosophical/psychological by asking any question you have of EACH hexagram or line or combination of - no magical/random methods just hard work, step by step, mapping of any question to each and every hexagram etc.

If you add-in the XOR material then you have 64 aspects of each hexagram and no moving lines etc involved!

A scientific approach is thorough nd covers all that could be IN GENERAL. THEN comes the grounding, the customisation of such, by you in some context. Soak all of that in and you will benefit greatly. BUT you need to cover all from a 21st century AD perspective (XORIng etc) not the limitations of the 10th century BC.

Chris.

Hi Chris,
thanks for the effort to explain me my the way I use is limiting the outcome, but I don;t get it. I have tried to use your method but its too complex to me. I learn better when I can relate the theory to real examples. I wonder if you want and have the time to explain me how to get an answer with your way. The way I think is to ask a question and read in in both ways but with your way I'll need your help.
let me know if you can do that for me.

ps. can you explain me the "limitations of the 10th century BC" refers to tossing coins or to the way I perceive thing in general ?

maria

 

[soshin]

General remarks...

Good to read that. Thank you, for sharing your thoughts.

Called it a dharma combat jokingly (but with a grain of truth) because it is about the Yi (and for some good reasons I am sure about the good intentions of all the human beings here about the Yi's wisdom, that's simply out of the question, I think we can agree on that).

There's a lovely little story, just for you to see we have this situatiuon in Buddhism, too, sometimes.

A Zen Master and a Tibetan Master met in front of a big audience, guess it must have been in the sixties in San Francisco, Alan Watts told the story.

They did not discuss before what they would do on the stage (it was in a theatre hall) and they just met up for the first time in their respective live.

The Zen Master was holding up an orange and asking the Tibetan Master "What is this"? The Tibetan Master was not at least baffled or something, he was just thinking about what this Master was speaking about.

After the Zen Master repeated the question in a very demanding tone, the Tibetan Master asked his translator, now a little bit worried: "Are there no oranges where he is coming from?"

So I think background and personal history are a very important thing to consider, when meeting something.

Although we do not know the personal history and background of each other so well here, I think it is a good thing to start with that we are on common ground regarding the genuine interest in the teachings of the Yi.

For us all here, apparently we are in seemingly different and very interesting stages of putting the teachings of the Yi, the very core of it, into practice in our live, which I think it is all about. Yi as a practice.

And I enjoyed the hmmms and long time thinking about how to answer the respective questions very much, as they themselves are showing the spirit of Inner Truth.

Although obviously we are not Masters, I think it is a good idea to just keep on trying to do our best.

Namaste,

Soshin

 

[lightofreason]

..ps. can you explain me the "limitations of the 10th century BC" refers to tossing coins or to the way I perceive thing in general ?

maria

...coin tossing or any other 'miraculous/random method. What ou have been trained to believe is a 10th century BC view of reality - reactive rather than proactive.

The emotional I Ching is based on understanding how our brains work and how getting the IC ask questions of you can allow for identifing the context that is pushing your buttons and from THAT allowing consciousness to decide to:

(1) Go with the flow
(2) fight the flow and set down own context
(3) move on.

Chris.

 

[Sparhawk]

​

 

[bruce_g]

Good one, Luis!

 

[soshin]

Oh, Luis!

:bows:

 

[maremaria]

...coin tossing or any other 'miraculous/random method. What ou have been trained to believe is a 10th century BC view of reality - reactive rather than proactive.

The emotional I Ching is based on understanding how our brains work and how getting the IC ask questions of you can allow for identifing the context that is pushing your buttons and from THAT allowing consciousness to decide to:

(1) Go with the flow
(2) fight the flow and set down own context
(3) move on.

Chris.

well ,i guess this means no.
I'll keep trying to understand your methodology. I have many question on how t use it. But i am keep walking. For the moment I will hear to the voice of zorbas in my mind telling me
"Boss, everything's simple in the world. How many times must I tell you? So don't go and complicate things! "

thanks chris.

 

[heylise]

Chris: The ONLY practical method is to set a context of a question and apply all of the hexagrams/dodecagram to that question. In doing so you cover the full spectrum of the question and the I Ching and so learn more efficently than 10th century BC thinking.

I agree, but I think it is not all. It is the intellectual side, with logic and logical results. A very good side. It starts from out what humanly can be understood, from a conscious mind, about things one can give a name, facts. A question asked this way gives clear answers, which are not ambiguous. But it will be an answer which gives facts about things or feelings one already knows about, not beyond that. It will not enter magic, or the unknown.

The other side, where things are illogical and 'random' and vague and magical, gives vague answers, but they can bring big changes. Something is touched which goes beyond facts and the visible world. Either visible for the eyes or for the mind. It seems a lot less efficient, sometimes the answer stays in a mist, and even then it can be a big answer, bigger than a logical answer ever can be.

I think the practical method is very good for finding out the best course of action in a situation. But the magical one is better for reaching one's heart, or the heart of matters, other people, times. It goes to the seeds where things have no names yet.

LiSe

 

[dobro p]

Very well put, Lise.

 

[hilary]

What are you?

61 to 4

The inner truth of your not knowing?
Not knowing, known inwardly?

(For debate on what 'not knowing' might amount to, see above )

 

[lightofreason]

....
I think the practical method is very good for finding out the best course of action in a situation. But the magical one is better for reaching one's heart, or the heart of matters, other people, times. It goes to the seeds where things have no names yet.
LiSe

I think you are not focusing on the dynamics of the question method for the IC rather than coin tossing etc. The question method covers the I Ching seemingly asking YOU questions, not you it. When you turn to use the I Ching for an immediate assessment of a situation it is usually due to an inability to assess an emotion-painted situation that has come to the attention of consciousness. Since consciousess can censor so we need to 'bypass' and the way to do that is to get the IC to ask questions. The form of the questions is generic and they are applied to how one FEELS in that we are utilising our semi-autonomous emotions to make an assessment by supplying them with 'coathangers' onto which they 'hang' their emotion.

The first question is about facts/values. The second question operates WITHIN those and focuses on what was/is/will be VS what could-haven-been/is-not/could-be. The third question is about you being reactive (responding) or proactive (instigating) and so on.

The result is an assessment of the situation derived from an emotional assessment that can be 'free' of conscious regulation all due to the generality of the questions.

THEN comes consciousness linking the assessment with the situation, the hexagram with the context, and in doing so revealing what is being censored OR resolving some emotional concern that has missed some details that negate that concern.

Thus we have (a) the full spectrum consideration of some question applied to EACH hexagram or (b) the particular 'best fit' hexagram derived from an emotional assessment of the context without you asking a question other than "describe this situation for me - here are the answers to the usual questions..."

This is truely magical in that it comes out of the unconscious, not from anywhere else, and the actions of the unconscious can be 'magical' in that we consciously lack awareness of its goings-on, BUT the unconscious also lacks precision OR it looks out for No-1 and so can respond 'inappropriately' - and so is censored by consciousness - the magic is in getting the IC to bypass that and communicate directly, through image, with the unconscious.

The difference that makes a difference comes out of the singular nature and can transform the whole from the position of a part but there has to be congruence in all of that for it to work properly and that means integration of conscious/unconscious.

Chris.