Justice,

 

After you have talked with yourself and listened to yourself and have experienced the difference between your effortful, unnatural, unconscious Disembodied Language (DL) – in which you do not listen to yourself, while you speak – and your effortless, natural, conscious Embodied Language (EL) – in which you listen to yourself, while you speak – you will stop your DL and then, be able to continue with your EL. The justice of our ongoing EL, is what I describe as your Language Enlightenment (LE). Your LE is about your ability to share your EL with others.

 

Nothing about your ongoing EL is accidental, which means, it only occurs, because it can occur. The absence of your EL, always implies the presence of your DL, because EL and DL are mutually exclusive. Stated differently, your DL or EL, like other behavior, is lawful, that is, it occurs, because it is reinforced. Obviously, your DL occurs at a very high response-rate, because it is reinforced – rather than triggered – all the time, whereas, your EL happens, at best, at a very low response-rate, since it is not socially reinforced and thus, almost entirely dependent on your ability to self-stimulate. Surely, only someone, who knows about the big difference between your DL and your EL, can reinforce your EL. I am that person. Justice comes from Latin iustus, which means upright, righteous, equitable; in accordance with law, lawful; true, proper; perfect, complete, related to Spanish justo or Italian giusto. Ius means right, especially, legal right, as in jurist, jury and injury; also, iustum, which means, what is right or just. Since my EL is ongoing, my other behavior is in tune with my EL and any old behavior, I still might have, due to my conditioning history with DL, subsides. 

 

After someone has, somewhat, acknowledged the immensely important difference between their own DL and their own EL, they are bound to interpret their first few steps in EL, in terms of what they have come to know with their DL. In other words, they merely experience a brief reprieve from their DL and quickly revert back to it again, as they try defending their old beliefs. It is 'mind-blowing', that during EL all our beliefs dissolve, as the entire phony concept of inner language has been exposed and understood.

 

Sadly, most people have absolutely no clue at all about the lawfulness of our behavior, because in academia as well as in science, Behaviorism and Behaviorology, were never given the credit they deserve. Everything I say and do is based on my behavioristic knowledge. Our DL and EL are two observable, universal, cross-species, response classes, which are elicited by auditory or vocal stimuli. It has been a great journey for me to be able to interpret the DL/EL distinction in terms of B.F. Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism and L. Fraley’s Behaviorology.

 

It was, surprisingly, a behaviorist from my country of origin, the Netherlands, who fully endorsed my work. In the various wonderful conversations, I was fortunate to have with Bart Bruins, it was instantly clear, that my work matched with the Theory Of Dominant Active Avoidance from Beata Bakker-de-Pree, who, had lived and worked, without me ever knowing about it, in my hometown The Hague. Simply stated, there are three basic behaviors: Approach (A), Escape (E) and Active Avoidance (AA). The proportion of these three behaviors, for a psychologically ‘healthy’ person, is perhaps something like 10A:5E:85AA. What this means, is that most of our behavior has to involve Active Avoidance of anything that is threatening to us. Escape behavior is kept as small as possible, because evolutionary speaking – and that is what I am talking about – it is the costliest, as we may, inadvertently, approach danger, from which we have to flee, or we die. Ideally speaking, we only approach something, which is beneficial to us. So, as Bart has acknowledged, EL is the approach behavior, which is based on Dominant Active Avoidance.

 

I hope Bart Bruins is still around and that he reads this, because his recognition of my work, has meant a great deal to me. It was only after I had withdrawn from my PhD-candidacy at Palo Alto University and had moved back to Chico, that I had time to read and study behaviorist’ research. I still insist, behaviorism as well as behaviorology – which you can read about in my elaborate earlier writings on this blog – have played a big role in the crystallization of what I now describe as the DL/EL distinction. Unfortunately, besides my sincere conversations with Bart Bruins, behaviorists were not interested in my work, as I continued with my EL and didn’t want to get involved in their stupid, unscientific DL. This, sadly, also applied to the behaviorologist L. Fraley, who wrote a fantastic book: “About Science, Life and Reality”, which I highly recommend, but who didn’t want talk with me. EL is needed to talk about behaviorology, which, even more so than behaviorism isn’t accepted in academia. Apparently, Fraley, like so many others, are more interested in writing, than in speaking. Over-emphasis on written language and the underestimation of spoken language is the main characteristic of DL, going on everywhere. It is understandable, we want to avoid DL, based on the theory of Dominant Active Avoidence... 

 

To finish this writing, I now return to the issue of justice.  As you should already know, justice can only be served with EL. There always will be injustice with DL. We shouldn’t even call it injustice, but ineffective use of our language, as when we don’t listen to ourselves while we speak, we unknowingly dissociate from our own experiences. The justice of ongoing EL doesn’t favor anyone. No one is accused of any wrongdoing in EL, as we describe our DL as truly it is. All of our conflicts and problems were created and maintained by our DL. Once our DL stops, all of our problems stop and then we will be able to continue our EL and experience our LE. This is true justice, that we can finally be who we really are.