Change,

 

People have been forever protesting for freedom, dignity, equality, and justice, but their call has never led to a change from Disembodied Language (DL) to Embodied Language (EL). Of course, such a change was never anyone’s objective. If that would have been the case, things would be very different, but despite millions of people demanding, screaming, begging, and fighting for change, the hegemony has remained the same. So-called experts everywhere are tooting their horns, yet they do not even know about the difference between DL and EL. If there is ever going to be any positive change, it is going to come from those, who know about that difference and who insist on making this difference, like me.

 

While many, people, who, presumably, are very important, brag about making a difference, they are incapable of acknowledging the great dissimilarity between their usual way of talking, which is DL and the way of talking, which really makes a difference, which is EL. Right now, only I and a few friends are capable of distinguishing between DL and EL and all those, who do not know, unintentionally, merely advocate for another, supposedly, modern, version of DL. They make others believe, that their version of DL is somehow more effective, as they are better at manipulating, dominating, and deceiving. Not surprisingly, DL, our common, trouble-some way of talking, is everywhere and is making the possibility and necessity of EL even more and more elusive.

 

Anyone who knows about EL, who, subsequently, also acknowledges the difference between EL and DL, realizes, the opportunities for communicators to change their DL to EL, only become smaller and smaller, as we age and, eventually, do not occur at all anymore. Someone like me refuses to do what others do and is not interested in or effected by the forceful, repetitive, unintelligent actions of others. I only identify, accept, and act on my own interests and readily, happily admit, I have only one single objective: the only thing which matters is what makes and keeps me happy. The fact that millions of people live empty lives of protest, conflict, and anxiety, greatly impairs our relationships. Basically, the continuation of their DL is totally depressing.

 

Due to your unconscious, mechanical, boring DL, you completely misunderstand and misjudge, the inevitable, devastating effects of your so-called culture-wars. It is not by coincidence, that all of mankind is, when it comes down to it, just like you, against individualism and trapped by tribalism or group-think. You call it climate justice or black lives matter, but you keep describing and categorizing yourself and as others as belonging to this or that group. This – and nothing else – continues your DL.

 

If your DL remains unaddressed, you are bound to continue with it, without knowing that you have it. Mankind is doomed to the destructive accumulative effects of DL. Nothing changes for you, unless you, somehow, manage to stop your own DL and start to have ongoing EL. There is no other incentive to stop your usual way of talking, than your discovery of your own EL. To your disadvantage, you make it seem as if DL is all you have got. You are your own worst enemy and stopping your DL is the only way to start having some EL. EL is better than DL. Once we have it, we will finally all be on the same page.           

 

Being on the same page is not some metaphor, but you understanding and acknowledging the truth of these words. Unless you accomplish EL, you have not accomplished anything. People, who talk about making a difference, are wrong. Nobody was doing anything right, if they continued with DL. Moreover, you did not know what you were talking about with DL. It is not your fault, that you were conditioned to only have DL and ignore your EL and your natural way of being, called Language Enlightenment (LE). It is up to you to get involved with your own language.    

 

Happy,

 

Being happy involves a focus on how you deal with your language. Many people have talked about happiness, but they never brought their attention to speaking, listening, writing, and reading. To the contrary, they are busy with everything else, except with their language. You consider your language as something you have in common with others, who belong to the same verbal community, but you have never stepped away from this so-called group-think, to explore, understand and find your own language.   

 

How do you prefer to speak? Why do you listen? What do you write, if you would write about your way of talking? What is the use of reading what others have written, which is all based on their involvement in Disembodied Language (DL)? If you would discover your own way of dealing with language, you would be engaging in Embodied Language (EL). There are no books about EL and there do not need to be. Speaking EL is important.

 

We have greatly overestimated, exaggerated, and misjudged the importance of written language, and we have underestimated, neglected, and remained unaware about the necessity of spoken language. The fact, that we consider written words to be more important than spoken words, indicates that we are not only missing out on EL, which is, simply stated, the beauty and joy of the spoken word, but we are also completely oblivious about the way in which the written word either enhances or undermines the spoken word. If we engage in DL, we are bound to produce writings, which will further set us apart, as the restoration of the importance of the spoken word, by means of writing about it, is as important as speaking about it. You would only be able to write about EL, if you first spoke about it. You can’t do the former, if you haven’t done the latter.

 

Your happiness has remained merely something you wish for, that is why in DL, you childishly demand the attention of the listener. Nobody else has ever put into proper perspective, why, during our usual way of talking, which is DL, speakers struggle to get and keep getting the attention from the listener? There is only one reason: to dominate the listener.

 

In DL the speaker, in one way or another, coerces the listener. In principle, this done to prevent the listener from speaking, but this is often covered up by pretending as if the speaker speaks on behalf of the listener. The speaker, supposedly, represents the listener, and, yes, he or she would even claim to give a voice to the voiceless. In EL, on the other hand, speakers do not dominate listeners, because they listen to themselves, and, therefore, they are able to experience how the listener is experiencing the speaker. Thus, EL speakers produce an entirely different sound or energy, than DL speakers.

 

The listener hears an EL speaker say things, which he or she could have said so him or herself and he or she experiences attunement with the speaker, but listening to a DL speaker, the listener disagrees with the speaker, who he or she experiences as separate or different from him or herself. In DL, the listener is conflicted by the speaker. Such conflict appears to continue, in the listener, even after the DL speaker is no longer there or is done speaking.

 

Negative self-talk or a troubled mind is an illusion, created by the so-called memory of trauma, which is produced by the fact that our nervous system was conditioned to experience, in the name of ordinary conversation, to endure stress, aggression, fear, humiliation, anxiety, disrespect, oppression, and, stupidity. The worst form of conditioning, is the conditioning of mediocrity, which prevents the listener from becoming a speaker, who can listen to him or herself while he or she speaks. Indeed, DL is the language of superficiality. Obviously, listeners can handle a lot of abuse, but the lack of intelligence of the forceful, dumb DL speaker, conditions millions of listeners to go against their own self-interests.

 

Happiness is impossible, if we do not know what our self-interest entails, but it will be found if we recognize it in our way of doing things. We can hear it, while we speak, we experience it and prolong it, by becoming aware, our happiness has its own sound. Moreover, our happiness, which I call Language Enlightenment (LE), wants us to do certain things, but protects us from doing things, which are not good for us. Thus, with our EL, we fully express our LE and we find happiness in everything we do.   

 

Of Course,

 

Of course, I write and speak like this, because I am happy. If you would be happy, like me, you would write and speak like me as well. Most likely, we would often speak with each other, as there are not that many people with whom we can share our happiness. Most people believe, that although not everyone is happy, certainly a lot of people are, but this is not true. Only very few people are happy. How could they be happy, if they do not know anything at all about Embodied Language (EL)?

 

People may try to be happy; they may act as if they are happy; other people may believe that they are happy and they might even believe it themselves, but this does not mean that they are happy. Only if we have EL can we be happy. I can say and write this, because I engage in EL and I have stopped my Disembodied Language (DL). Those who have not done what I have done, can not be happy. And, I am convinced, I am right. My happiness would convince anyone, it is true, what I say and write. However, nobody wants to know about my happiness. This is how it always goes with someone who is happy.

 

Perhaps, you may read these words and consider, a moment or two, what I am saying, but you are not talking with me and you already know, you never are going to either. Why is that? I know why that is. It is because my happiness will show you, that your so-called happiness is not true, is totally fake, is just a big show. Stated differently, real happiness is infuriating to you. To see or hear me, makes you jealous. To first experience and then, to understand me, makes you angry, because you had assumed to know something about happiness, but you have been believing in your own lies. My happiness is an enormous confrontation for you, as there is no other way, than to fully admit, that you are still unhappy, as you are still engaging in DL, every day.

 

It makes no difference to me, if you want to know about my happiness or not, as my happiness does not depend on your approval. However, I know how to have EL and you do not. I am not saying that you need my approval for your EL, but, as far as I know, I am the only one, who knows about the difference between DL and EL. Therefore, you will not hear or read anyone else speak or write about it, in the way that I do. My descriptions are exact, that is, if you would experiment with listening to yourself while you speak, you would find out, that everything is exactly as I have said it is. Everyone who talks with me experiences the same phenomena, once they begin to acknowledge their own DL and EL.

 

With the DL/EL distinction, we have stumbled on the lawfulness of behavior. Any behavior comes about only, when it is possible, when, knowingly or unknowingly, we have created the circumstances in which it could occur. Yes, it may come as a surprise to you, that we mainly engage in DL and that when we have a moment of EL, it is gone before we know it. We are shocked to feel, there was an instance of consciousness, but we can not continue with it, as we do not know how to do that. We lack the skills.

 

It is astonishing, that in DL, we remain busy with all kinds of other things, except the verbal behavior, which makes us happy or keeps us unhappy. Our unhappiness is not caused by any of the reasons we usually give for it. Simply stated, our unhappiness is the result of how we deal with our language and it all goes back to how we talk. Once we deal with our language correctly, we are permanently happy. I am always happy, because my EL makes me deal with my language in such a manner, that my Language Enlightenment (LE) can be expressed. The incorrect way of dealing with language, is when, due to our DL, our LE remains unexpressed and unknown to us.

 

We speak about happiness, but it is the expression of our LE, which we, unknowingly, are referring to. Also, when we speak about being open, respectful, kind, patient, understanding, successful, confident, or empathetic, we are referring to EL. By contrast, if we talk about and experience, that we are being defensive, aggressive, pretentious, when we feel, we are failing, struggling, overwhelmed, distracted, oppressed, fearful or confused, we always engage in DL. With DL, nobody can be happy and without any knowledge about the difference between DL and EL, we continue to have DL, while we endlessly keep talking about happiness, peace, collaboration or having a real conversation. In DL, we keep talking about things, without experiencing how we feel while we speak. I am happy, because I feel happy while I speak or write, even if it is all by myself.                 

 

Interactions,

 

Our interactions with each other are the foundation for our relationships. Due to our conversations, we, hopefully, behave, in, what can be described as, at least, a somewhat civilized manner. However, each society, every culture, came about and was and is sustained mainly by Disembodied Language (DL).

 

Although Embodied Language (EL) is, simply stated, our natural, effortless way of talking, we seldom if ever accomplish it. Even among, presumably, close family members, friends, or the participants of the groups we affiliate with because of preferences, beliefs, or values, we hardly have any EL. Sadly, we can only have some accidental EL with each other, but never deliberately, skillfully, or consistently. The few, brief moments of EL, which we usually describe as profound or deep, are troublesome, as we do not possess the necessary skill set to go on with it and we do not know how to find it back, when we lose it. The moment we experience some EL, it is gone.   

 

Thousands of philosophical, psychological, spiritual self-help books and articles have been written, to address what I call EL, but they all have missed the mark, as they were, at best, a distraction from or an effort to, supposedly, transcend our DL. Since none of our so-called experts know anything about the great difference between DL and EL, it has never been stated clearly, that what we have framed as psychology, philosophy, or spirituality is, just like our sciences, merely referring to our way of talking.

 

Surely, we hang on to all kinds of texts, guidelines, scriptures, theories, laws, definitions, and myths, in the idle hope to achieve some EL, but the reality is, our writings, about speaking and relationship, has never done anything to change how we interact. We live in modern environments, which are made possible by our technologies and sciences, yet, we talk in a superstitious, anti-intellectual manner.

 

The quintessential falsehood of DL is our tenacious belief, that we have a mind. However, with EL, we finally fully acknowledge, there are only neurons, neurotransmitters, white and grey matter, in our heads, but there are no thoughts, sentences, words, pictures, memories, or associations. Our common way of talking has maintained the harmful illusion that we can have covert speech or inaudible private conversations with ourselves. Due to our almost permanent involvement in DL, this seems to be the only way we know and accept, how to speak about our experiences. Anyone with half a brain will know: there never existed an inner, behavior-causing self.

 

We talk about our behavior as if we know, but our catastrophic lives illustrate, we only know how to mechanically repeat our old assumptions, which were conditioned by the circumstances, which we have experienced and endured. Our EL is not some theory, but a biological reality. We either can talk without any fear, because we feel completely safe and relaxed or we speak in way, which signifies, we feel threatened, stressed, defensives, aggressive or dissociated. Therefore, the difference between EL and DL is the evolutionary truth about how we talk.

 

The Dutch behaviorist Beata Bakker-De Pree (1987) elaborated in her fascinating book Constructional Behavior Therapy about the behavioral repertoire humans have in common with other organisms. Like B.F. Skinner, she had an evolutionary approach to behavior. Her theory of Dominant Active Avoidance, which perfectly dovetails with the EL/DL distinction, applied to relationships, states (I paraphrase from memory): we either approach each other and are happy or – whether we know it or not, can talk about it or not, admit or not, or are aware of it or not – we somehow seek to escape or avoid each other. Stated differently, we use our language to approach and maintain a sense of regulation or we use it to survive, by means of escape or avoidance.  

 

Escape behavior is very costly, as we have come close to a source of danger. To survive, our escape behavior should ideally be kept at a minimum and, proportionally, represent the least of our behavioral repertoire. Let us say, it should only be 5% of what we do. Ideally, we do not need to escape and the remaining 95% of our behavior contains avoidance or approach behavior. To maintain homeostasis, all living organisms only thrive if, proportionally, the largest part of their behavioral repertoire consists of dominant active avoidance. Approach behavior is, proportionally, much smaller than our avoidance behavior. However, finding water, food, mating, exploring, and playing, may still bring us closer to threatening circumstances. The total picture of our behavioral repertoire may look like this: 5% escape behavior, 85% dominant active avoidance and 10% approach behavior. This example is not necessarily applicable for everyone, but is meant to highlight the fact, that active avoidance should dominate our behavior. Surely, we can only accomplish this if our way of talking (EL) keeps instructing us to do this.  

 

As we can easily observe in our own lives and in the lives of others, that our dominant active avoidance behavior is, due to our DL, not playing its crucially important protective role. We, disproportionally, approach things which and people who are no good for us, from which we must escape. We still have much avoidance behavior, however, since it is not conscious, and, it is not effective. Our unconscious avoidance behavior (e.g. alcohol, drugs, violence, porn, food, amusement, work, news), prevents us from approaching healthy things and brings us in touch with life-threatening circumstances, which, ideally, should have been actively avoided. If we would prolong our EL, those behaviors would simply dissolve, as it would become clear only dominant active avoidance behavior can keep us safe, healthy, and happy. Likewise, we would only want to approach what truly benefits and enhances us, which would develop the verbal skill-set, which is essential to achieving and sustaining our wellbeing.  

 

Although EL can certainly be enjoyed with others and allows us to share our Language Enlightenment (LE) – the verbal version of homeostasis – our EL will primarily remain a form of self-stimulation, rather than a socially reinforced behavior. In other words, our need to be safe, while being verbal is innate. As  we speak, we will continue to reflexively respond to anything that is perceived, correctly or incorrectly,  as a threat. Therefore, DL is ubiquitous and EL has never flourished anywhere, as our DL has always pushed our EL aside. To this day, primitive survival behavior has continued to remain the basis of how we speak with one another. Consequently, our interaction, as conceived during DL, is always about the battle for attention. Speakers only survive or seemingly matter, if they can verbally win the battle for dominance. Interestingly, in American politics today, the left does not want to debate anymore with the right, as the technology and bureaucracy allows them to get their message across relatively painlessly. Of course, they do not practice EL, but DL, but evidently, they will do anything to avoid DL.                           

 

 

Stop,

 

Whatever I say or write about Embodied Language (EL) isn’t up for debate. It doesn’t matter what kind of opinion or preconceived idea you have about it, as such judgments are always referring to your own Disembodied Language (DL). The point I am making with this writing, is that your usual way of talking cannot accept EL and, therefore, must be stopped, before EL can be heard, perceived, and expressed.  

 

It must have occurred to you, that how you know or experience yourself, is always something entirely different from how others know or experience you. This is the inevitable outcome of DL, our common way of talking. Only when we can have ongoing EL, we realize, for the first time, if they do not engage in EL with us, others do not and cannot know or experience us at all. This is something crucially important to understand, as we feel constantly judged, scrutinized, weighed, interpreted, or pigeonholed by others, in ways we do not want.

 

When we disagree with the perceptions of others about who we, presumably, are, we engage in DL. People are against stigmatization or stereotyping, but they do not realize, our DL has to be stopped. What we keep getting frustrated and worked up about, is always about how our language is being used. Unknowingly, we object to the DL of others, but this prevents us from paying attention to our own DL. And, if the DL of others still bothers us, this indicates, we haven’t dealt with our own DL.

 

Although this may sound very simple, EL is simple, but acquiring EL is complicated by the fact that our DL has a sound, we do not like to listen to. We hate to listen to the sound of our own DL so much, that we rather listen to and bitch about the DL of others. And, this is precisely what we do, as we, day in, day out, engage with others in DL. Our aversion of our own DL is such, that we automatically block out and dissociate from what it feels like to experience it. In other words, we do not hear what our DL is like, as we are psychologically deaf for the sound, which we shamefully produce every day, without even realizing that we ourselves absolutely do not like it. Thus, we talk mainly in an unconscious manner. We do not hear ourselves while we speak, because we are more concerned about whether others are hearing us or whether we are listening to them. 

 

Ironically, in DL, which is our usual way of talking, we basically only pretend to speak and listen. If we would listen to how we really sound, we would hear – if we don’t have any organic hearing problems –  that it is true that we pretend to sound happy, open, sincere, friendly, attentive, interested, respectful or appreciative, that is, in DL, we are continuously virtue-signaling. Oddly, we are, inadvertently, trying to make it seem as if we are already having EL, since we do not know how to have it. This is the great dilemma of DL: we are trying to fake it until we make it. As such, we keep trying to convince ourselves and each other, that we are having EL, while, in reality, we have become more and more insidious with and trapped by our own repetitive DL.  

 

EL cannot be faked and no brilliant actor has ever had any EL in any movie. Also, humor, as we know it, could not help us to attain our EL. The tragedy of our conditioning history with DL is, that we cannot be genuine while we speak with one another, as we prevent ourselves and each other from producing an authentic sound. Naturally, our resonant voice is not negative, but positive and always expresses our wellbeing. EL is the intelligent, new conversation, in which our voice keeps guiding us into the beautiful effects of the expression of our positive emotions.

 

In EL, we are not merely experiencing our positive emotions by ourselves, as we can share them and enhance them in others, that is, we create stable, safe, and healthy relationships, as we co-regulate each other. By listening to the sound of our voice while we speak, we become aware, that we could live a different way of life, than when we remain engaged in DL. The moment in which we realize, we speak with a sound, which we do absolutely do not like, we effortlessly stop making that sound and we start speaking with the sound we like.  

 

After we have switched back and forth between DL and EL a couple of times, it is very clear to us, that we want EL, not DL. We perceive the much better results of our EL. By being aware, our DL stops by itself and all the behaviors that went along with it drop away. Moreover, there is, during our EL, in our voice, this special sound, which makes us glow with bliss. This targeted unique expression reveals precisely the behaviors we should stop, to make it possible to continue our path with EL.

 

With EL, we create a new reality for ourselves and although others may share in our experiences, it does not really matter, if they do or don’t, as we are self-determined to continue with our EL. In effect, we attain and share our Language Enlightenment (LE) and enjoy the blossoming of our individuality. With EL, we know ourselves better than how others seem to know us with their DL and those, who are courageous enough to have EL with us, they know us as we are, as they also talk with and listen to their own voice while they speak.                        

 

Identity,

 

Those who, supposedly, fight against the injustice in this world, have it all wrong, on so many different levels. They claim to be the voice for the voiceless, which is, in and of itself, total nonsense. We don’t need other people to represent us, because we are not voiceless, but we need to become conscious about the sound of our own voice, while we speak.

 

We all tend to believe, what is often described as group-think, because we view ourselves and each other, as belonging or wanting to belong to a group. What happened to individualism? To be a modern individual, we can’t afford to remain identified with our outdated, ancient affiliation with some group.

 

It is inevitable that we grow up and are conditioned by various group-environments. We become who we are, due to our families, tribes, clubs, religions, towns, countries, languages or professions. As some point, we say, we have made up our mind, that we belong to this or that party, to this or that belief, to those, who are winners or losers, to those, who are superior or inferior, to those, who are in power or  those, who are oppressed. However, although our so-called identity is always, in one way or another, framed as our kinship, over the course of our lives, we all face the challenge of becoming an individual.  

 

For most people, there continues to be an intense conflict between, on the one hand, our conditioning history, to conform to whatever social group we believe to belong to, and, on the other hand, our individuality. Such ongoing conflict is maintained by our way of talking, which commonly expresses our everlasting fear, stress, anxiety, chaos and struggle.

 

Our usual way of talking is Disembodied Language (DL). The fact, however, that we don’t know how to have ongoing Embodied Language (EL) – which, in principle is possible for everyone and would be beneficial to anyone – signifies that we have failed to become individuals, because our way of talking didn’t and couldn’t express it properly. Only in EL is our individuality expressed correctly, as it is the way of talking that is without any negativity or conflict.

 

Those who have never heard about and who have never experienced the great difference between DL and EL, probably consider the possibility of talking without any pressure or fear, as some idolized state, but those few individuals, who were courageous enough to explore this important difference, are bound to acknowledge the unavoidable truth, that their EL reveals their Language Enlightenment (LE).

 

Those who manage to stop their DL and continue with their EL, live, as individuals, a life without any problems, because they are no longer motivated by anything, which, presumably, represents them. The issue of representation, is a verbal construct. Simply stated, our identity or who we believe ourselves to be, is merely a bunch of words. Interestingly, in DL, we identify more with what we say, than with how we say what we say. We normally remain verbally obsessed and fixated, but during EL, although we use our language, we are not imprisoned or limited by our words. Our liberation from words is usually, incorrectly, described as getting out of our mind.  

 

In DL, we keep going around in circles, as our mind is just another verbal concept. There is our group-reality, we like to believe we agree on, due to our descriptions and definitions and there is, of course, our so-called subjective reality, of who we believe ourselves to be, as individuals. Even in the latter, we never acquire the way of talking, that settles our conflict between who we really are and who we are supposed to be.  

 

Freud also described the aforementioned, as the conflict between our urges, needs and desires of the Id and the development of the Ego. He was correct, in my opinion, in assuming that, ideally, the reality principle, developed by the Ego, solves the problem of the pleasure principle, which is basically the problem of our inappropriate behavior. Indeed, he discovered aspects of EL, which he described as free association, which, strikingly, is the patient talking out loud with him or herself. Yet, Freud remained hung up on his psycho-analytic theory and none of his patients were ever completely psycho-analyzed, as there was no clarity or knowledge about the DL/EL distinction, let alone, about LE, the very core of our healthy individuality. 

 

Tragically, as long as we don’t know, that we can and should control and stop our DL (which Freud would describe as our Id), we are unable to engage in ongoing EL (which Freud would consider, as the development of our Ego) and realize our LE (which Freud appears to refer to as our Super-Ego). Stated differently, there is only the reality of how we each, individually, deal with our language. We create (with our language) and live in our own reality. Therefore, there exists no mind to assess the reality of the so-called external world. Moreover, EL is the only path, to live a life without any conflict. There is no other way, to understand and end our DL and to be an individual, than with ongoing EL.                       

 

Fact,

 

The fact, that I have finally given up on explaining my Embodied Language (EL) to others, makes that I can write so beautifully about it every day. Who cares about talking with others, when one can talk with oneself exactly how one wants to talk? I can say everything to myself, but I can’t say anything to you. You wouldn’t and couldn’t let me, as your way of talking is based on trying to dominate others.

 

Don’t tell me, you are open to having real dialogue, because you are not. If you would be willing to have EL with me, we would be having it, but you are not. You are not interested in having EL, as long as you find Disembodied Language (DL) more important, that is, you find talking with others more important than talking with yourself. While you may believe you have, you have never talked with yourself. Yes, you may have talked with yourself, but you have talked with yourself in the same way as you have talked with others. How could it be otherwise? In DL, we talk with others, with the belief, they are someone else, someone different from ourselves. Supposedly, others are independent, different, unique or free to be who they want to be. However, their presumed separate existence from us in what we construe as an external, objective environment, is a falsehood, we keep telling ourselves with DL.

 

Naturally, others are merely what we experience, remember or believe them to be. In other words, others are or seem to be, how we describe them. When we talk out loud with ourselves, instead of with others, we realize, there is no other. There is neither a me nor a you, as there is only our way of dealing with our language. When we stop talking, we stop being aware of who we seem to be, but this is only the case, if we stop having DL. By contrast, when we stop having EL, we are fully aware of who we are, as we have been able to be verbal about it.

 

Being fully verbal involves, that we consciously speak, listen, write or read. Surely, we have never been able to become aware about our Language Enlightenment (LE), as we didn’t allow ourselves or  each other to have ongoing EL. In DL, we always want others to recognize, accept and respect us, as we do not and cannot recognize, accept and respect ourselves. We don’t know this, but, inadvertently, we do to others, what we do to ourselves, that is, we force ourselves to believe who we are or seem to be and we also force others to believe, who we believe ourselves to be or would like to be. Since we behave automatically, our DL is never stopped by anything and we can only act out our conditioning history. DL gives a strange twist to the phrase: do unto others what you would have them do to you.

 

The most bewildering aspect about EL, for those who continue with DL, is that the person with EL doesn’t appear to validate, acknowledge or even pay attention to or listen to anyone with DL. In effect, those with DL are bound to feel rejected by anyone with EL. They are infuriated, as those with EL keep saying, literally, what they don’t want to hear, namely, they aren’t listening to themselves. As I was saying, why would anyone with EL want to do this, as those with DL will continue with their DL, even if those with EL are correctly describing what is going on? Whenever I describe my experience of you, that you are not listening to yourself while you speak, that you are engaging in DL, you are digging in your heels and deny that what I say is true. And, you are angry with me or anyone, who doesn’t buy into your DL. I have done everything I describe and am no longer negatively affected by anyone’s DL.

 

I have permanently stopped talking with those who have DL, as it was the only way for me to continue with my EL. Besides, I can not stop anyone’s DL, as they will have to stop it themselves. Surely, they would only be able to stop their own DL, if they had a reason to do so, that is, a verbal instruction, which would bring the ancient mechanics of their history of conditioning to a halt. That golden rule is: listen to yourself while you speak. Only then will you hear,  feel and experience, something new taking place.

 

Nobody can be the voice for someone else. Each of us has his or her own voice and only will respond to it when we really hear this. While we may believe to be speaking with our own voice already, when we bring more attention and energy to how we sound and to what we experience, when we speak out loud alone with ourselves, it is strikingly clear to us, that, in our everyday way of talking, we don’t listen to ourselves at all and, therefore, we speak with a horrible, energy-draining, odd sound, which doesn’t belong to us, as it separates instead of connects us with ourselves. The big difference between DL and EL, therefore, is how we experience our own sound. In EL, we are proud, certain and confident, we have now stopped our own DL, as we hear something which is fresh, alive and creative, but in DL, on the other hand, we feel estranged from ourselves, failed, conflicted, stressed out and distracted.