O.K. Thanks again. I get the idea.
Well, your talking 'points' and talking 'cones' I assume the point is the point of the cone. Then you are talking 'allowing energy through to the ground.'
I have an understanding on points and the practice of using one point and of moving one point to any point you choose. I can thus do that for as you put it decoupling. All very interesting but I find in the end not too necessary myself for it can all be done from centre. Ie: With enough practice of centre the 'decoupling' happens naturally.
As far as it being needed on parts of the feet in order to allow energy to 'ground' I don't find it necessary. You can have feet flat and do so, you can sit seiza and do so, you can sit on a chair and do so.
So for me it sounds too complex.
Graham, thanks for your comments and insights. In fact, if you've read some of my basic comments that include grounding not being necessary; because we already are grounded. The fact that we're here and don't fry into vapor is proof that the ground connection is intrinsic. And I agree, the decoupling model is too complex. It did help me arrive at a destination, but I can see the model is no longer needed. I'm also happy to chuck it out, as it simplifies the model even more. Cheers....