SEASON 4: EPISODE 9
Published 02/02/2026
John:
Today, we’re talking about a topic that we hope will bring a little bit more nuance to the understanding of the not-self in Human Design. It’s the distortion of our definition, how that happens, what that looks like, some examples of that. But before we get into that, I thought we’d just talk a little bit about the not-self and what that means. How is that talked about in Human Design?
Amy:
I think the most obvious place we often see the not-self through the Human Design mechanics is through how we characterize the undefined centers when they’re not in a healthy state, through the not-self themes of the undefined centers. So for example, instead of viewing the undefined solar plexus as a potential source of wisdom, someone with an undefined solar plexus could potentially recognize and reflect and bring some awareness to and have some wisdom about the emotional energies around them. That would be part of the healthy functioning of the undefined solar plexus. The not-self theme that we see there is often described as avoiding confrontation and truth. So that will usually mean that instead of that area, that open area being a wisdom potential, it becomes an area where we get overwhelmed with what we take in. And instead of being able to navigate that, we’ll just attempt to avoid the whole issue altogether.
So we get this theme of avoiding truth. And we have those themes, many of us have heard and know about, through all of the different centers when they’re undefined. But I think what we’re focused on today with this distortion of definition is not only seeing those not-self themes through the undefined centers, but seeing what that actually does to our definition.
John:
Right, because there’s a relationship there between our openness and our definition. So the not-self could be thought of as a collection of mental strategies that shows up through our openness, where we try to make our open parts that are really designed to be somewhat dependent on external conditions, energies that are available, what’s happening in the moment. We try to make them fixed or we try to make them stable for us. And we will often see a kind of distortion in the open centers, the open channels, or the bridge gates. But what you’re saying is interesting, that there is a relationship between that and the definition, which we would describe as our innate capacities, something that’s closer to our true nature, meaning our gifts, our capacities that are consistent and reliable for us.
Amy:
I think we could also describe the definition as an intact and inherent flow of life force. So a channel, anytime we’re looking at a channel, we’re not just looking at inanimate characteristics. We’re looking at something that is alive, that’s an alive frequency and life force within us, that has its own intelligence, that’s connected to the way those two centers that it’s joining have their own intelligence. It’s a living life force within us, the definition. So the issue then becomes, what happens if I take that undefined solar plexus example a little further? What happens if I have a defined sacral motor or I have some channel that’s connecting to the sacral center that is about the response, the living response of my life force energy, but instead of being directed by that intelligence, I start navigating and making all of my decisions in life based on not upsetting other people, which would be the not-self strategy of the undefined solar plexus?
So when we’re highlighting the not-self through the undefined centers, we’re often focused on those themes, which is important. But I think when we look closer at what that compulsive nature of the undefined centers does to our life force, I think that’s where we really get to start to see what it costs us. And maybe one of the biggest things it costs us is a connection to our own inner intelligence. So why would we do this in the first place? If I come into the world as a child with a defined sacral motor and a channel that’s connected there that has its own response to life, to what enlivens me, what engages my energy, if I’m born with that, why would I not listen to that?
John:
So where does it start?
Amy:
In a way, how does it start?
John:
Well, in your example, if you come into the world and you have a defined sacral center, you’re a generator, and let’s say your early life experience is often being told what to do and what not to do. Like you can think of a young child who’s exploring the world through their response, through what they have the energy for, what they resonate with, exploring through play. And then if you have an authority figure come into the picture who says, “No, no, no, don’t do that. Do this. That’s not good. Don’t do that behavior or don’t be interested in this thing. You need to put your energy and attention and activity over in this direction.” There’s a kind of suppression of the innate natural response, which as we’re talking about definition as an expression of the natural life force, I would think that over time, if enough of that happens, then you’re going to start trying to please the authority figure, for example.
They have an open solar plexus and it’s like, I don’t want to upset the adult, so I’m going to avoid that. I’m going to go and try to please them. And the next thing you know, you see these not-self thematics or strategies start to set up.
Amy:
Yeah. As humans, our development process of getting to a point where we can be somewhat self-sustaining just as a living organism takes a long time. We don’t pop out like horses and immediately start running. It takes years. And Ra suggested that first seven years was so important because we’re so dependent during that period on the support and the care of the older people around us. So yeah, what you’re describing, I think you’d be hard pressed to find any living person on this planet who didn’t have the experience of being rejected in some way for following the natural response within us. Those early experiences, and even for many of us, continued experiences throughout our lives of rejection, can really be a source of some tough memories and some intense conditioning. We’ll often focus on the not-self being about where we feel inadequate or where we’re overwhelmed in the undefined centers.
But I think a lot of people, from what I can tell, also carry a certain amount of pain around and repression of their own life force because it was rejected or because it’s been rejected in certain circumstances. And that rejection can cause us to sense that it’s not okay to let my life force live according to its own intelligence. I need to subjugate it in some way to what someone else will like, approve of, accept, revere, praise, whatever it might be.
John:
And I’m thinking of other examples and wanting to flip the example that we just had with a generator, defined sacral and an undefined solar plexus. What if we flip it and we have an emotional projector? So we have a defined solar plexus, open sacral. How can you see that setting up?
Amy:
So there, we might be looking at someone who has part of their life force being defined by this innate emotional chemistry and process, which means part of how they experience themselves and the world is through their emotional experience. That person might be rejected for the intensity of those emotions or for the time it takes to deal with those emotions. And then the messaging could be, “Well, don’t feel so much. Instead, get to work, do something productive, do something useful.”
And so we might see that what happens there is I have to subjugate the innate emotional intelligence and chemistry to the not-self theme of my open sacral. And what’s the not-self theme of the open sacral? Not knowing when enough is enough. It’s part of it. So instead of honoring that emotional intelligence, which doesn’t care about how productive we are, it doesn’t care about, are we doing as much work as everybody else? It doesn’t care. Its own intelligence has another reason to exist. The chemistry is there for another reason, but if I have to start thinking, no, I’ve got to be more productive. I don’t have enough energy. I need more energy. What can I do to get more energy? Now we’ve got our life force instead of just getting to do what it’s meant to do naturally, we’re contorting it to make it fit with this self-comparison thing that’s going on in the undefined sacral.
And this would be an example where a person might end up with a lot of emotional pain that is just never getting worked through because the attitude is, well, just get to work, do something useful. How do we have a thriving emotional life force when we’re told to be endlessly productive? So I could imagine someone in that situation becoming either maybe quite deeply depressed or having a lot of emotional pain that just never gets to be addressed or acknowledged.
John:
And this is interesting to me because you talked about earlier the relationship between the definition and the openness, and how that could also be seen as the relationship between what we’ve known up to now. And as we’re talking about this, what’s coming through to me is the definition could be seen as the thing I need to subjugate or hide, whereas the openness is actually what I’m showing. And really, we’re wanting to flip that on its head.
Amy:
Yeah. And then the openness runs the show. The openness dictates what the definition is for. And that’s backwards. And it’s a way of ultimately trying to take the life force out of ourselves so that we can survive. And I think that might be how it, it’s a survival mechanism, but we’re taking the life force out of ourselves in an attempt to survive.
John:
Yeah. And we do that because somewhere along the way, we were taught that the manifestation of that force, the expression of that capacity, that energy wasn’t wanted or wasn’t okay or wasn’t accepted, or was rejected. And so out of self-preservation, we learned to suppress it or hide it or change it in some way.
Amy:
Yeah. Yeah. I think so. And then when we start to look at our charts or when we look at somebody else’s chart, there’s some value I think in being able to look at the definition with fresh eyes, to be able to look at those channels, those gates that are defined and those centers that are defined as if they’re just qualities of life that want to live through us. And on some level, we might even say these are like qualities of consciousness that just want to be expressed through what we are, expressed through how we are, that they’re there for their own reasons and those reasons are valid. And that doesn’t mean that we might not need to mature in our expression of them or that we won’t need to develop some skills to help express them. But I think that all the terms in Human Design can maybe give us some good handles to start to know ourselves in a certain way. And it’s in the actual living of them that we get to find out what is this actually for? What does this actually want to do?
John:
I think you just brought up a really important point because when I was, as I was hearing you talk, I was thinking, okay, there’s the expression of these energies in the defined areas and there are always considerations. Maybe it’s the lines or the not-self themes that are coming in, but I just appreciated in what you were just saying is like these aren’t things that necessarily need to be fixed. It’s about learning the language of them. It’s learning how to work with that energy. It’s letting it express in a natural and healthy way. I think that’s important.
Amy:
Yeah. And I do think, because we might, it might be that we’ve been suppressing it long enough that actually it will get distorted. I mean, that emotional projector that we were talking about, if they never allow the emotional processing to happen, if they never allow the emotions to just be lived and experienced, then the emotions might turn into something else. And maybe there is a part of the deconditioning process at some point that we need to be able to acknowledge, okay, this wasn’t healthy. This was distorted. This was contorted. And maybe I do need to come into a healthier expression of it. But I like what you’re saying in that it’s not that there’s something that needs to be fixed about the nature of the channel or the nature of the definition, it’s about the distortion that’s been added onto it. So can we let go of the distortion or can we undo the distortion?
John:
Yeah. And I think part of the genius of looking at the design and seeing it laid out and being able to see both the openness and the definition, the centers, the channels, the gates, the planets, the tones, the bases, all of it, is that it gives us almost a map of our unique nature and what we’re navigating. And so it’s a tool to help us learn where am I being guided by the openness and my not-self strategies there? And where am I coming back to my definition and learning to navigate life through it and trust it and express it? And I think that’s part of the beauty of working with the system.
Amy:
Yeah. I mean, I do feel like when we can allow the definition to just come to life and we’re willing to live that, and in a way you can’t know ahead of time how it’s going to come to life. It’s an actual experiment, which I think is the whole experiment piece, right? The experiment is you don’t have a prescription. You don’t have a way to do it right or wrong, but can you be curious and interested enough to try and just see what happens if I let this just express as it wants to express? And maybe if I let this just live, maybe I will meet rejection. Maybe I won’t. Maybe I’ll meet praise. Maybe I won’t. And I can learn from all of those experiences, but can I just give it a chance to see what is actually there when I’m not trying to subjugate it to the not-self strategy?
John:
Yeah. And I think to move into the experiment space requires that we have some degree of access to our definition. And what you were just talking about makes me think of this trust that we can learn to have in the definition that as life shows up, if we’re in our body and we’re present, there’s an inner wisdom, an inner awareness, an inner knowing that can navigate. And as you’re saying, we may not know before the fact what’s going to happen, but as it’s happening, if we can be present with it and be still enough and centered enough, we can navigate it. We can work it out.
Amy:
Yeah. And I like what you said about having some degree of access to our definition. I think that speaks to the fact that it is a whole deconditioning process. It’s a whole maturation process. It takes time. And we might get glimpses of it. We might get a taste of it. And then maybe we get overwhelmed and scared again. And we might spend time away from it until the conditions are right for us to try again. And I think, yeah, I think there’s a whole process that unfolds over time.
John:
Yeah. And I think about that a lot, the time piece. I think people often will ask, well, how long is deconditioning? How long does this take? And I think that’s maybe the wrong question because the deconditioning process, if we’re talking about it from a developmental psychological standpoint, could be viewed through, well, how long were you in your formative years being conditioned? How long were you reinforcing and repeating the conditioning patterns? And all of that time is necessary to set these things up deeply enough that they become almost second nature to us, automatic. And so if we’re going to decondition, we’re unwinding all of that. And I would imagine that’s also going to be commensurate with the amount of time and the depth of the conditioning that we experienced. So it’s a process and it takes time.
Amy:
Yeah. And I think as you’re pointing out, obviously we can’t know the prescription. We can’t know in advance. And I also think that there’s points in all of our lives where we actually might be in a situation where we do have to suppress or subjugate some part of our nature because our life or our safety might depend on it. And maybe that’s just what is and maybe that’s even okay. And for me anyway, my primary interest is in people’s freedom. And freedom to me would mean that if you’re choosing to suppress something, you know that that’s what you’re doing and you’re doing it consciously for a very good reason that makes sense to you. And that’s different than it being compulsive and unconscious and based on old conditioning that might not even be relevant anymore.
So the invitation is, can we bring enough awareness to what’s going on that we actually get to know ourselves and live in more awareness, that we can make a choice? And that doesn’t mean we’re always going to be free to live our nature fully. There are some real circumstances and conditions of life that might make that not possible at all times. But can we at least be aware and conscious in the way we’re navigating it?
John:
I think that’s such a good reminder because I think that’s the important piece is the awareness that if I’m suppressing this part of myself or if I’m holding something back or if I’m not showing up in a certain way, to be conscious of it, to know that that’s happening versus it being unconscious, compulsive. We don’t even have a choice in the matter. It’s just what we do because it’s so ingrained. And so I think that that awareness piece is so crucial.
Amy:
Yeah. And I think that if we’re able to decondition enough that we can get curious about what is my nature? What am I like when I’m just being myself in my most natural state? Even if we can’t get to live that all the time, even if we can’t get to fully embody that all the time, but even just to be able to know what is that like, I think there’s tremendous value in it because I think that’s part of where we find meaning and purpose and we find what brings us to life and what enlivens us. And we get to have an encounter with what makes us uniquely ourselves. And I think that’s deeply meaningful and significant for each of us, even if we can’t always be that in the world.
John:
Yeah. And I think that speaks to one of the deeper purposes of working with Human Design is to come back to ourselves and to know ourselves and to be comfortable with ourselves. And it’s not about fixing ourselves or making ourselves into something better. It’s about recognizing what we already are and learning to be okay with that and learning to work with it skillfully.
Amy:
Yeah. I mean, I think the idea that we think we need to be fixed is part of the problem to begin with. And Human Design is not there to fix us. It’s there to help us see ourselves more clearly and accept ourselves more fully. And part of what we’re doing in the deconditioning process is not only learning to let go of those conditioning themes through the open centers, but also unwinding or unknotting ourselves in the ways that we’ve maybe judged or rejected our own nature. As that starts to get unknotted, as that starts to open up and take on its natural life again, then we might actually start to get to see and recognize what this capacity is for and how it can serve or what it can do and how it really works for ourselves and ultimately for others as well.
John:
Yeah, that’s such a good point because often when we talk about deconditioning in Human Design, there’s a real emphasis or focus on the undefined parts of ourselves, the not-self themes of the centers, for example. And that’s obviously a big piece of it, where the mind will tend to go and you start seeing these not-self strategies, stories, narratives that are running and guiding and directing our life in a way. The point that you’re making is, I think, really a good one in that, what about the true or the innate and natural expression of what we actually are? Are we comfortable doing that? Because that may be deeper to the heart of the issue, right?
Amy:
Yes. Yes. Because then if we let that definition start to express itself according to our own intelligence, we may come face to face with the conditioned fear that we’ll be rejected for it. And that’s likely something that is part of a maturation process for us all and a deconditioning process, to have the courage to find out and also have the courage potentially to discover that there are some people who will resonate with that nature for what it is, that you won’t have to force it and you won’t have to distort it.
John:
I think of the word contort.
Amy:
Contort. Yeah. Yeah. Twist it up in a pretzel. Yes. Contorted. I think it’s a deep invitation anytime we’re looking at our own design or at someone else’s to be able to notice if there is an automatic reaction in us on some level that wants to reject it. I think we come across that where someone will say, “Oh, I have the 61-24, I don’t like that. I don’t like that definition in myself. I wish I didn’t have that.” And to me, that’s always a signal of there must be some misunderstanding in there about… I like that term, like misunderstanding, like we’ve misunderstood ourselves or we’ve misunderstood something about somebody else. There must be a misunderstanding in there for us to reject something that is a source of natural life force and intelligence in us.
John:
Yeah. And I think when those type of things come up, this sense of, I could express this, I could respond this way, I could say this, but there’s some sort of narrative or story there that I’ll be viewed negatively. Or like you’re saying, “I don’t like that.” That’s actually a good thing because when those things come up, then we get to see from a deeper level what we’re actually working with. What are the programs or what is the conditioning that’s running under the surface? And if we have an opportunity like that where we get to see that, I would like to do this or this is a part of who I am, but I’m not going to, then maybe that’s wisdom. Maybe that’s something we’ve learned is not here, no one’s asking. That’s a common one. But maybe also that’s an old, outdated program that has been running and we get to shine light on it. We get to look at it or maybe change our relationship to it. Do you know what I mean?
Amy:
Yeah. Yeah. I think that’s why on a certain level, I appreciate some of the seemingly negative descriptions and keynotes that Ra brought, even though a lot of people want to kind of upgrade those or make them more expansive or more validating in some way. And I think there’s value in that too. But when I see terms like confusion or stingy or mean or doubting or limitation or crisis, there’s so many terms in the Rave I Ching and there’s so many terms that Ra used that if you first read it, it’s like, “Ooh, that does not sound good. I don’t think. Who wants to be confused? Who wants to be in crisis?” But I find it to be a helpful stimulation in a way because I think it can stimulate us to get curious about, what is it we’re rejecting here and then what are we losing based on that rejection?
If I reject all confusion, I want no confusion in my life. I don’t want that channel. I don’t want that activation. I don’t want to encounter it in other people. What do you miss out on by not being able to embrace confusion? What do you miss out on by not being willing to accept limitation or crisis? I think that’s a deep source of potential wisdom and deconditioning. Yeah.
John:
It makes me think of detriment as well as being another place in our design where if you read it in the Rave I Ching, they often sound more negative than the exaltation. Most people would look at the exaltation and say, “Oh, that sounds better. I’d like that part, please.” But the detriment is interesting because I feel like the detriment’s an example of what you’re talking about, where there is something there to be seen, something there to be worked out, where we can bring our own creative intelligence to, our own unique way of meeting that issue when it comes up in our life. And if we’re just suppressing it, denying it, or saying, “I don’t want it, that’s not me,” then I think something’s lost.
Amy:
Yeah, I agree. If we continually view the definition through the evaluation of a different center and one that’s undefined in us, I think that’s where we get distorted. And it almost has this underlying quality of, “I’m not going to let this thing live unless it appeases or appeals to these undefined center themes.” Now we’ve got our definition as being hijacked or held hostage by an outer evaluation that is not a source of intelligence for us.
John:
Yeah. And I think it says something about just the whole interplay between our openness and our definition and that the openness tends to be the most receptive part of us, where we’re open, where we’re receptive to outside conditioning, influence. We get to have an exchange in those areas of our life in maybe a more pronounced way. And then it’s our definition that’s then meeting that incoming conditioning. And if we’re in alignment with it, if we’re comfortable with it, if we own it in a sense and we’re not trying to suppress it or change it, we can tap into that innate intelligence that we have in our definition through our authority, through our awareness. And then we can work out, well, what’s correct in this circumstance? What’s correct under these conditions? And I think life tends to go better.
Amy:
Yeah. I like that view because it really shows how the entire body graph, everything that’s defined, everything that’s undefined, everything that’s there, everything that’s only there conditionally is all part of us. And so that adaptive quality, that receptive quality, that conditional quality in us is as much a part of us as the definition is. It’s just a different kind of, it’s a different aspect of our nature, but it’s all part of our nature. So there’s healthy and unhealthy expression, there’s intelligent and unintelligent expression of everything we see in the body graph, whether it’s defined or undefined. I think it’s an invitation to just be able to recognize these different aspects of ourselves and how they work and how they don’t work and what it costs us when we act against ourselves and what we gain when we embrace all these different parts of our own nature.
So it’s really an invitation, I think, to explore, and we each can only do that for ourselves.
