Relative Values

This article was first published in "The Power of How" by Daniel McGowan.

There is a section in F.M Alexander’s book, ‘THE USE OF THE SELF’, in Chapter 5 entitled, ‘Diagnosis and Medical Training’ in which he draws comparisons between attempts at making positive psycho-physical changes directly, and attempts at doing so indirectly. He compares trying to change directly, without using his way of inhibition and direction, to changing indirectly by the conscious use of inhibition and direction. He calls this comparison, ‘Relative Values’.

In the individual’s quest to achieve fundamental, abiding change in the organism, Alexander’s great discovery of the power of the indirect method of change – the power of how – using conscious inhibition and direction, has proved most effective in creating striking benefits in the health and quality of life of those people dedicated to his theory and practice.

The following is my understanding of what he means:

The six paragraphs quoted below can be found in the book. The reader may wish to read the whole chapter and book to get them into proper context. I have numbered the paragraphs for easy reference.

Paragraph One
“I have been asked whether the technique I advocate is applicable to cases of people who are anxious, not so much to remedy a so-called physical defect, but to overcome or change what they think of as ‘mental’ or ‘nervous’ troubles, including bad habits of all kinds, as they realise that as long as they cannot control these they are not getting the best out of themselves. (By these I mean such habits as absent-mindedness, forgetfulness, lack of awareness and observation, undue excitability, twitching, plucking at fingers, inability to sit still, nail-biting, over-sensitiveness, uncontrollable temper, inattention etc.). My answer is that the fact that these people are unable to make a change within themselves, which they have reasoned out would be a desirable change, shows that their reaction to the stimulus to gain this end is an unsatisfactory reaction, and that this brings their case into line with the golfer who cannot keep his eyes on the ball when he wishes to, and of the stutterer who cannot speak as he desires.”

Paragraph Two
“I will say at once that of course no one could give a general definition of a satisfactory reaction which would meet the particular circumstances of every case, but we shall surely all agree that in cases where people wish to improve themselves, or to make changes which they consider will be for their good, or to overcome defects and bad habits, their reaction may be considered satisfactory when they succeed in doing what they have reasoned out is the right thing for them to do.”

Paragraph Thre
“This should make it clear that we are not here concerned with fixed standards of value as to what constitutes right or wrong in any particular case. Such standards are relative and more or less individual, for a man’s beliefs and acts are largely the outcome of his upbringing and circumstances, and therefore should not be judged by any fixed standard of right and wrong. Acts which are held to be right by one race and at one period are often condemned by other people or at other periods. Circumstances and conditions play a part in the question, and each case has to be judged on its own merits.”

Paragraph Four
“But where the use of the self is concerned, there is a standard which can generally be accepted, for it can be demonstrated that a certain manner of use of the mechanisms is found in association with a certain satisfactory standard of functioning and with conditions of health and general well-being. We are surely justified in considering a manner of use that is associated with such desirable conditions to be ‘natural’ or ‘right’ under all circumstances. But this is not a fixed standard of ‘right’, in the accepted meaning of the word, for this manner of use, being based upon a primary control of the mechanisms of the organism is the one that can be applied and adapted to meet all circumstances, and its ‘rightness’ may therefore be said to be relative to those circumstances. Further, the experiences involved in acquiring a knowledge of such ‘right’ and ‘natural’ use of the self gives a person a criterion of judgement to go by, and also an understanding of relative values, for in this process, he is constantly brought up against situations in which, after receiving a stimulus, he has to decide what manner of use is the best to employ in reacting to it and also to judge which of the directions for this manner of use is primary, which is secondary, and so on. The standard of relative values that he thus acquires is one that will stand him in good stead in reacting to the stimuli of modern life, in which conditions change so constantly that they cannot be adequately met by any external standard or fixed code as to what is right or wrong. Seeing that the self is the instrument of all his activities it follows that a valid criterion relating to the use of the self will be a criterion that is valid in relation to all his activities, both so-called ‘mental’ and ‘physical’.”

Paragraph Five
“It is the lack of a valid criterion as to what constitutes right use in the sense of ‘right for the purpose’ that renders people unable to carry out their resolutions and to make certain changes for the better in themselves and in their conduct and attitude towards others. Like the golfer and the stutterer, they want to make a change, but bring into play for the purpose the only use of themselves they know – that use, with its associated habits, which we have called throughout this book the ‘habitual’ use of the self, and the fact that, when using themselves in this habitual way they do not succeed in doing what they have reasoned out is the right thing to do, indicates that their habitual use is misdirected and faulty for the purpose. As long as they have no other criterion to go by but that of the familiar feeling of their wrong habitual use, the use they employ will be wrong for the purpose and their reaction to the stimulus to make the desired change will be their instinctive reaction, and therefore directed along the old wrong channel.”

Paragraph Six
“To meet this difficulty I would apply to their case the technique which I advocate for the building up of a conscious direction of use, for its employment demands that instinctive reaction be inhibited and superseded by reasoning processes. I have found that in this process of acquiring a conscious direction of use my pupils gradually develop a higher standard of sensory awareness or appreciation of what they are doing in the use of themselves, so that when it comes to carrying out a course of activity they have decided upon, they possess a criterion within themselves which will enable them to judge whether the use they are employing is right or not for the purpose. This will constitute a criterion of self-criticism where impressions conveyed through feeling and leading to further experience, are concerned.”

(End of relevant paragraphs)

For clarity my words are written in ordinary type and Alexander’s in bold italics and/or bold type. I will quote his words extensively throughout.

Comments on Paragraph One
The fact that Alexander says that people who wish to change mental or nervous habits by methods “which they have reasoned out” shows that he acknowledges that, to make a particular change, people can use their reason. There is also no doubt that specific changes can be made by an act of will, but too often the will is not strong enough. Why? The reason is that these so-called mental or nervous habits manifest as so-called physical muscle-tension patterns. Many people do not recognise these patterns and do not know how to deal with them.

The person who does manage to change a specific habit by an act of will has managed to change the muscle-tension pattern associated with that mental or nervous habit. The problem is, however, according to F.M., that this specific pattern will be replaced in the body by another, which is then used to prevent the recurrence of the specific mental or nervous habit. The person is justified in thinking that this is a “satisfactory reaction”, because they have succeeded in doing what they set out to do, i.e. get rid of the specific mental or nervous habit.

When a person does not succeed in changing, by an act of will, the muscle-tension pattern associated with a specific mental or nervous habit then, F.M. says, “their reaction to the stimulus to gain this end is an unsatisfactory reaction.”

Comments on Paragraph Two
It should be noted here that although “no one can give a general definition of a satisfactory reaction.” F.M. says that “their reaction may be considered satisfactory when they succeed in doing what they have reasoned out is the right thing for them to do.”

Here he is acknowledging that the person’s method of changing some habit cannot be questioned or criticised. The person has succeeded in doing what they set out to do. That’s that! The person is justified in believing in the method and feeling satisfied with the result. F.M. is also acknowledging the person’s reasoning powers, their ability to use their reason.

To illustrate the point, two different methods of giving up something which someone is addicted to can be compared. One person reduces, a little at a time, their intake of the substance to which they are addicted. The second person simply stops their intake abruptly. Both of them reasoned out what to do and both were successful. There are no “fixed standards of value” which is what F.M. discusses in the next paragraph.

Comments on Paragraph Three
In this paragraph F.M. emphasises that when a person has reasoned out what to do in particular circumstances and has succeeded in doing it, then the method adopted “should not be judged by any fixed standard of right or wrong. Such standards are relative and more or less individual, and each case has to be judged on its own merits.”

He then goes on to say, in paragraph four, “But where the use of the self is concerned, there is a standard that can generally be accepted. But this is not a fixed standard…”. Let’s consider this whole paragraph.

Comments on Paragraph Four
A lengthy explanation involving many aspects of the process of constructive conscious control is necessary.

The first part of this paragraph says, “But where the use of the self is concerned, there is a standard which can generally be accepted.” There are two important points to be considered here (1) “the use of the self”, (2) “there is a standard which can generally be accepted.”

Let us first consider “the use of the self”. F.M. goes on to say, “it can be demonstrated that a certain manner of use of the mechanisms is found in association with a certain satisfactory standard of functioning.” In short this quote says that use (of the self) affects functioning (of the self). What does this mean? To remind ourselves we can go back to the chapter “USE AND FUNCTIONING IN RELATION TO REACTION”, where he defines the phrase “use and functioning” and says, “I wish to make it plain that whenever I use the phrase ‘use and functioning’ in relation to the human organisms, I do not indicate by it mechanical activity as such, but include in the phrase all manifestations of human activity involved in what we designate as conception or understanding, withholding or giving consent, thinking, reasoning, directing etc.. For the manifestation of such activities cannot be dissociated from the use of the mechanisms and the associated functioning of the organism.”

It is important to note, that in using the phrase “use and functioning”, F.M. does not mean only the mechanical activity of the body, such as moving an arm or a leg or whatever. Constructive conscious control is about the use of the SELF, not the use of the body alone. Constructive awareness is not about bodywork. It is about stimulus – reaction. It teaches one primarily how to deal with a stimulus that always puts one wrong. Elsewhere F.M. uses the phrase, “psycho-mechanics,” which covers the mental activities of forming conceptions, of understanding, withholding or giving consent, reasoning, directing etc.. The “use of the self” then, is not only so-called physical activity; it is psycho-physical activity.

Going back to this part of this paragraph 4, where he says “it can be demonstrated that a certain use of the mechanisms is found etc” note that F.M. uses the term “use of the mechanisms” instead of “use of the self” and it is here repeated that “mechanisms” means “mental” as well as “physical” activity.

Another point. Where F.M. says “a certain manner of use of the mechanisms is found in association with a certain satisfactory standard of functioning…” what he means by a “certain manner of use” is good use (to put it simply) or the co-ordinated, harmonious use of the psycho-physical mechanisms, because he then says this “certain manner of use” is found in association with “a certain satisfactory standard of functioning.” In short, satisfactory functioning is achieved through the co-ordinated use of the self.

The next phrase, “there is a standard which can generally be accepted” we will consider later, together with the phrase, “But this is not a fixed standard of right…”

Before this, we can consider the phrase, “We are surely justified in considering a manner of use that is associated with such desirable conditions to be natural and right under all circumstances.” This is F.M.’s way of saying that the co-ordinated use of the psycho-physical mechanisms, as advocated by him, are definitely “‘natural’ and ‘right’ under all circumstances’: hence the reason for saying, “there is a standard which can generally be accepted.”

He then says, “But this is not a fixed standard of ‘right’ for this manner of use, being based upon a primary control of the mechanisms of the organism is one that can be applied and adapted to meet all circumstances, and its ‘rightness’ may therefore be said to be relative to these circumstances.”

Let us consider the phrase, “But this is not a fixed standard of “right”, together with “for (because) this manner of use, being based upon a primary control of the mechanisms….”

The primary control of the mechanisms is, as F.M. says elsewhere, “a certain relation of the head to the neck and the head and the neck to the torso”, which I will here call the integrity of the head-neck-back relationship. This “manner of use” then, is based upon this integrity, which should be attended to in all circumstances: but the general “manner of use” is not a “fixed standard of ‘right’…”, and as I said before I will attempt to explain this later, in conjunction with “this manner of use…. can be applied and adapted to meet all circumstances…”.

But first, F.M. says, “Further, the experiences involved in acquiring a knowledge of such ‘right’ and ‘natural’ use of the self gives a person a criterion of judgement to go by….”. He is referring here to the teaching situation (a lesson), because, apart from doing what he did single-handedly there is no other way for a person to acquire this knowledge. “The experiences involved in acquiring a knowledge…” refers, therefore, to an individual taking lessons in constructive conscious control to acquire “a criterion of judgement to go by”, and also an understanding of relative values, “for (because) in this process (the lesson) he is constantly brought up against situations in which, after receiving a stimulus, he has to decide what manner of use is the best to employ in reacting to it.”

Let us consider these points. In the lesson, the teacher attempts to educate the pupil in how to apply constructive conscious control in the use of the self, and in my experience of teaching, I find it best to start with the “simple” act of sitting down in a chair because it is such a big stimulus to the pupil to react habitually and to sit down as they know “sitting down”. As a co-ordinated “manner of use” is based upon the integrity of the head-neck-back relationship – “the primary control” – the pupil is asked to inhibit her reaction to the wish to sit down, to STOP and then think of not stiffening the neck, think the head forward and up and think the back to lengthen and widen: and while maintaining these directions as the first priority, to sit down in the chair. It goes without saying that, of course, I do not ask my pupils to think of all this in their first experience of a lesson. This is far too much, but in time, over a number of lessons, the pupils learn to expand their attention enough to be able to think in this way.

This seems straightforward when applied to the activity of sitting down, but strange things can occur when the pupil is confronted with another situation “in which, after receiving a stimulus, he has to decide what manner of use is the best to employ in reacting to it.” I will give two examples from my teaching experience to illustrate this:

(1) After some lessons, I asked a male pupil how he would apply the principles he had learned in sitting down to the activity of picking up a stool, which I had placed in front of him. I noticed that he stopped, thought through the neck-head-back directions and then proceeded to bend his back in a huge curve, kept his legs straight and picked up the stool. Despite being shown how to bend his knees and hips co-ordinatedly in sitting down, he was unable to make the link and employ these movements in another situation. (I should point out that I do not use only the activity of sitting down for 20 lessons or so. I confront my pupils with new situations all the time.)

(2) A woman, an experienced pupil who had had lessons with another teacher, came to me for the first time. I could see that she was tired, so I worked with her quietly in the chair and then on the table. At the end of the lesson, she took out her cheque book, put it on the table and proceeded to bend like the man in the first example. I stopped her politely and asked if I could show her how to bend co-ordinatedly to write the cheque. She agreed and after a few minutes she was in a beautiful “baby-bend”, where she had bent her knees and hips in a co-ordinated manner. I asked her to keep attending to the integrity of her head-neck-back relationship and to go ahead and write the cheque. To her astonishment, she found that she could not even start writing. (Maybe it was paying for the lesson that stopped her!) She too could not make the link and apply the principles to another situation. She actually told me that she thought that constructive awareness need only be applied to sitting down and standing up in the ‘proper’ way!

To return to the man in the first illustration, I explained that his thinking was fine, but to pick up the stool he should bend his knees and hips as he did when sitting down in the chair. He understood the point, went through the directions again, bent his knees and hips, but pulled his head back and bent his back, although not as much as the first time. I then asked him what he thought of during the movement and he said, “My knees”. The point of this last sentence will be explained later.

We are still considering this point where F.M. says, “he (the pupil) has to decide what manner of use is the best to employ”. What this means is that the teacher invites the pupil to consider what the teacher is advocating as a co-ordinated “manner of use.” The pupil then “has to decide what manner of use is the best to employ.” If the pupil agrees that the co-ordinated “manner of use” proposed by the teacher “is the best to employ” then the pupil has made a choice. In other words, this means that the pupil chooses not to employ his old, habitual “manner of use”, because he now knows that it is not based on the “primary control” and could not, therefore, be “‘natural’ and ‘right’ under all circumstances.”

This last point is obviously linked to the next one where F.M. says the pupil must “also judge which of the directions for this manner of use is primary, which secondary, and so on”. As this “manner of use” is based on the “primary control”, the primary directions are, “not to stiffen the neck”, – “head to go forward and up” – “back to lengthen and widen”. Secondary directions (and following directions, third, fourth, fifth etc.) are those such as “think the knees forward” – “think the hips back” and any other directions to be given in sequence, depending on the activity one is doing. F.M says elsewhere that the directions should be given in their proper sequence in a combined activity, “all together, one after the other”, and we can now return to the example of the man who gave his knees the priority during his second attempt to pick up the stool. In doing this, he did not think of the primary directions – “not to stiffen the neck” – “head to go forward and up” – “back to lengthen and to widen”, but was preoccupied with his knees. This means that he had not yet understood that a co-ordinated “manner of use, being based upon a primary control of the mechanisms of the organism is one that can be applied and adapted to meet all circumstances”.

Next we can consider another point about the phrase (the pupil must) “also judge which of the directions for the manner of use is primary, which secondary and so on”. Here we are still in the situation of a lesson and the teacher has again invited the pupil to consider what the teacher is advocating as the correct sequence of directions. If the pupil understands why the directions are to be thought of in the correct sequence then he has decided or agreed with the teacher as to which direction is primary, which secondary and so on. In other words, having given consent to the learning of constructive conscious control the pupil takes on the self-discipline of giving the directions in their correct sequence. He cannot, therefore, choose a random sequence of directions like the male pupil in the first example who made his direction to his knees the primary one and forgot about the integrity of his head-neck-back relationship.

The fact that the pupil has agreed with and accepted what the teacher advocates as “the best manner of use to employ” and also has decided with the teacher “which of the directions for this manner of use is primary, which secondary and so on”, is confirmed in F.M.’s account of his work with a stutterer where he says on page 48 of his book, “I would repeatedly urge him, whenever I gave him a sound or word to pronounce, always to inhibit his old habitual response to my request by refusing to pronounce the sound or word until he had taken time to think out and employ the new directions for the use which he had decided upon as best for his purpose. He would agree to do this, but as soon as I asked him to pronounce some sound or word, he would fail to inhibit his response to the stimulus of my voice, and forgetting all about the new directions he had been asked to employ, he would immediately try to repeat the sound….”. Note that when F.M. says, “which he (the stutterer) had decided upon”, he does not mean that the stutterer decided on his “manner of use” by himself. It was put to him by F.M. for consideration and the stutterer then agreed or decided that it was “best for his purpose”. He not only decided that the “manner of use” advocated by F.M. was “best for his purpose”, but also agreed that the “new directions” were “best for his purpose”. This is confirmed where F.M. says, “the new directions he had been asked (not told) to employ.”

It is vitally important here to remember that in Chapter 1, “EVOLUTION OF A TECHNIQUE”, F.M. himself went through, alone, this very process, in attempting to change the manner of his reaction to the stimulus to recite, of having to decide what manner of use is the best to employ in reacting to it, and also to judge which of the directions for this manner of use is primary, which secondary and so on. It took him years of working on himself to discover that his main concern had always been to gain his end and recite: and only when he recognised instead that his conscious direction of his “manner of use” had to become his primary concern, even when reciting, did he further realise that “this manner of use, being based upon a primary control of the mechanisms of the organism is one that can be applied and adapted to meet all circumstances.” He also became able “to judge which of the directions for this manner of use is primary, which secondary and so on.”

F.M. then moves from the situation of a lesson into that of using the principles in the everyday acts of life, when he says, “The standard of relative values that he thus acquires (in the lessons) is one that will stand him in good stead in reacting to the stimuli of modern life in which conditions change so constantly that they cannot be met adequately by any external standard or fixed code as to what is right or wrong. Seeing that the self is the instrument of all his activities, it follows that a valid criterion relating to the use of the self will be a criterion that is valid in relation to all his activities, both so-called ‘mental’ and ‘physical’.” In the phrase, “conditions change so constantly that they cannot be adequately met by any external standard or fixed code”, F.M. is showing the value of having an internal, individualised standard, “a valid criterion relating to the use of the self”. This internal, individualised standard “will stand him in good stead in reacting to the stimuli of modern life.” It is the self-discipline involved in the process of learning constructive conscious control, which paradoxically leads to greater freedom, not only of thought and action, but freedom in thought and action, “both so-called ‘mental’ and ‘physical’.”

Let us now consider the phrase, “The standard of relative values that he thus acquires.” Firstly, a reminder that in this paragraph the context is within the “use of the self,” because it begins with, “But where the use of the self is concerned there is a standard which can generally be accepted.” F.M. is not now talking about the social and cultural differences that exist between nations, which he mentioned in paragraph 3. So, in the context of the “use of the self” we can consider the two earlier examples of each of two people using different methods of giving up something to which they are addicted. As F.M. says, “their reaction may be considered satisfactory when they succeed in doing what they have reasoned out is the right thing for them to do.” The question is, “In relation to the use of the self what have they achieved?” They have, by exercising their will-power, stopped their addiction, but in the process have merely changed one specific muscle-tension pattern for another. Is this ultimately for the greater good of the organism as a whole? What is the value of this? Will they be able to use their will power to change some other specific muscle-tension pattern? Have they now acquired “a standard of relative values” and a “manner of use” that can be applied and adapted to meet all circumstances?

We can now take these two examples of a person succeeding “in doing what they have reasoned out is the right thing for them to do”, thus achieving a specific “satisfactory reaction” and compare them to Alexander’s process of constructive conscious control. The question is, “What are the relative values of the two approaches?” One is where the person, by an act of will, has succeeded in stopping their addiction, a specific, direct change, but has made no fundamental change in the general use of the self. The other is where the person attempts to adopt – indirectly – the principles of constructive conscious control to achieve a “manner of use” which is ‘natural’ and ‘right’ under all circumstances”, because “it can be demonstrated that a certain manner of use of the mechanisms is found in association with a certain satisfactory standard of functioning and with conditions of health and well-being.” To repeat the question, “What is the value of this?” A further question is, “Does the person who succeeds in stopping their addiction by a direct act of will achieve “a certain manner of use (which) is found in association with a certain standard of functioning and with conditions of health and well-being”?

We will now return to consider the phrase, “this manner of use, being based upon a primary control of the mechanisms of the organism, is one that can be applied and adapted to meet all circumstances.” and in particular we will consider, “can be applied and adapted.”

If one is sitting at the computer, a certain use is made of various parts of the self. One is sitting, thinking deeply, tapping keys, jotting notes, sucking glucose sweets to keep the brain alive etc., but all the time giving conscious directions, based upon the primary control to maintain good use of the self.

One then becomes fed-up and decides to do something vigorous like digging the garden. A different use of various parts of the self from those used at the computer is then adopted. One uses the legs in walking, bending, pushing the spade, whereas the legs were not used in sitting at the computer. In employing the arms to use the spade one moves them differently from tapping keys and jotting notes, but all the time giving conscious directions, based upon the primary control, to maintain good use of the self. In these two examples the conscious use of the self is “applied and adapted to meet all circumstances.”

This means there is a “‘natural’ and ‘right’ manner of use based upon a primary control of the mechanisms of the organism that can be applied and adapted to meet all circumstances.” And F.M. emphasises this in paragraph five by stating what happens with wrong, habitual use, where he says, “As long as they have no other criterion to go by but that of the familiar feeling of their wrong habitual use, the use they employ will be wrong for the purpose and their reaction to the stimulus to make the desired change will be their instinctive (habitual) reaction, and therefore directed along the old wrong channel.” He is saying there is a “wrong manner of use” based on subconscious, habitual behaviour and a “right manner of use” based upon conscious, reasoned behaviour.

F.M. confirms this in paragraph five and links it to sensory awareness, where he says, “I have found that in this process of acquiring a conscious direction of use my pupils gradually develop a higher standard of sensory awareness of what they are doing in the use of themselves so that when it comes to carrying out a course of activity they have decided upon (e.g. either working at the computer or digging the garden), they possess a criterion within themselves which will enable them to judge whether the use they are employing is right for the purpose.”

He goes on to say, “This will constitute a criterion of self-criticism where impressions conveyed through feeling and leading to further experience are concerned.”

This “criterion of self-criticism” means asking oneself, “What am I actually doing with myself during this activity?”

“Am I bending my back habitually too much, and not articulating co-ordinatedly at the hip, knee and ankle joints: am I holding my breath unnecessarily etc. as I pick up shovelfuls of earth in the garden?”

Or, “Am I slouching deeper and deeper at the computer, causing great pressure on the vital organs of the torso, as well as inadequate breathing, and become so mesmerised that I’ve been forcing myself to work too long?”

Another point to consider in paragraph six is where F.M. says, “I have found that in this process of acquiring a conscious direction of use (in the lessons) my pupils gradually develop a higher standard of sensory awareness.” Note that he refers to “my pupils acquiring a conscious direction of use” and this confirms that he is referring to the situation of a lesson, because there is no other way apart from what he did by himself of “acquiring a conscious direction of use”. This also confirms my explanation of what F.M. says in paragraph four, where reference is made to the situation of a lesson, beginning with the phrase, “Further, the experiences involved in acquiring a knowledge (the lessons) of such ‘right’ and ‘natural’ use of the self”, going on to “for in this process (the lessons) he is constantly brought up against situations in which, after receiving a stimulus, (“Sit down, please” or, “Pick up the stool, please” or, “Write the cheque, please”) he has to decide what manner of use is the best to employ in reacting to it, and also to judge which of the directions for this use is primary, which secondary and so on.”

If we go back to the beginning of paragraph six, we read that F.M. gives inhibition the first place of importance where he says, “To meet this difficulty, I would apply in their case the technique which I advocate for the building up of a conscious direction of use, for its employment demands that instinctive (habitual) reaction be inhibited and superseded by reasoning processes.” Note again the emphasis on stimulus – reaction, the very core of his work. Alexander then goes on to emphasise in paragraph six the primary importance of inhibition

Lastly, the phrase, “they possess a criterion within themselves” indicates CONSTRUCTIVE CONSCIOUS CONTROL OF THE INDIVIDUAL, BY THE INDIVIDUAL, the self-discipline which leads to greater and greater FREEDOM in everything we think, feel, and do.

This article was first published in The Power of How by Daniel McGowan. You can download the PDF of this book for free here: FREE DOWNLOAD