EPI — A Peer-Led Practice of Presencing

full-body-yes-no

4 min read

✎ Edit this page on GitHub

Full Body Yes / No

What it is

The practice of reading want and don’t want from the body, not the mind. The body knows yes from no through unarguable sensation; the mind will rationalize either direction. Full Body Yes/No is the practice of listening past the rationalization.

This is what the W of sew is asking for. Once the S and E of SEW have cleared, the body will tell the truth about what it wants — but only if the practitioner has built the capacity to hear it.

The move

  1. Clear first. Run sew on whatever activation is present. A want spoken from Reactive Brain — “I want you to listen to me!”, “I want to get out of here!” — is not a Full Body Yes/No. It is the persona talking. (See personas.)
  2. Notice the body’s signal. Bring the choice to mind — a food, an experience, a person, an invitation. What happens in the body? Opening or closing? Expansion or contraction? Forward lean or pull away? The signature is yours to learn. Most practitioners can identify their own yes-signature and no-signature with a little attention.
  3. Test against known cases. Foods you know you love. Foods you know you dislike. Experiences you remember as alive. Experiences you remember as draining. The body gives the same signal across cases.
  4. Trust the body over the story. The mind will provide reasons. The body is unarguable.

What this rules out

  • The Reactive Brain “want.” “I want him to apologize.” Not a Full Body Yes/No — it is a Reactive Brain strategy.
  • The “want from others.” “I want you to…” Always returns to what do I want from me? — the only place the practitioner has power.
  • Confusing fear with no. Fear is not a no. The body signal of fear is different from the body signal of no. Clearing the fear (running the emotion cycle, see emotional-cycles) reveals what the actual yes or no is underneath.

Why this matters

Wanting is how a person tells themselves apart from others, and how others can know them as separate. Submerging wants — through compromise, avoidance, “whatever you want, dear” — is a short-term solution that becomes a long-term problem. The submerged self eventually springs to the surface as resentment or relationship endings.

The curriculum names this strongly: no compromise. The co-creative question is “how can we both get everything we want?” — which can only be asked if each person can name what they actually want. The submerged voice can’t co-create.

⚠️ Team review item. The “no compromise” framing in the curriculum is strong and clear, but how it sits with making great agreements (where adjustment to others is the move) deserves team discussion. They are likely complementary — name the true want first, then craft the agreement — but the surface tension is worth being explicit about. Flagged for a future ingest or convergence call.

Facets served

  • principle-2 — translating the body’s wisdom; want is the third thing the body translates (after sensation and emotion).
  • principle-3 — the practice as presencing via SEW; the W is inaccessible without this capacity.
  • sew — the broader move. Full Body Yes/No is the depth practice of the W.
  • emotional-cycles — clear emotion first, or the “want” reads false.
  • personas — most persona wants are not Full Body wants; learning the difference is part of persona-interviews.

Source and attribution

Primary source: raw/2025 ILC Version AT Master Curriculum.docx.md, Week 3 (Translating the Body’s Wisdom — SEW: Knowing What You Want / Don’t Want). The curriculum references a Full Body Yes/No handout which is needs-export when the team is ready.

Status notes

canonical — promoted from needs-export 2026-05-24 from the ILC master curriculum (Week 3). One open team-review item flagged in body: the no compromise / great agreements relationship.

Referenced by

Graph View

Backlinks