Ten,

 

My first point is, I have slept very well. I feel rested and having good sleep is something I value greatly. It is clear to me, the less Disembodied Language (DL) and the more Embodied Language (EL) I have, the better my sleep has become. My sleep has been getting better and better over time because of how I deal with my language. I find that worth celebrating.

 

Second, it is raining very hard and I love the rain. Most people hate it, because here in Chico we are used to hot weather. Everything is green and the whole place looks and smells different. We haven’t had any rain for so long and now it has been raining for weeks on end. The fields are full of flowers.

 

Third, my Language Enlightenment (LE) is shining through in everything I do. I have amazing energy. When I come home from work, it is so nice to rest and relax. The combination of work and rest is also something, which suits me well. I am happy when I use my energy productively. I get a lot of work done.

 

Fourth, I am a simple person, but everyone seems so complicated and obsessed with problems. I don’t feel like being with most people, as I don’t have any problems. I don’t want any problems. Staying away from others doesn’t make me feel bad, but good. It doesn’t bother me, that people don’t believe me.

 

Fifth, I felt like only writing ten points today. I like to keep it short, to see what I come up with if I try to be brief. I enjoy to elaborate, but I also like to get to the point. Brevity is overrated, as there is a taboo on any kind of thorough approach. Our lack of time makes everyone superficial and unintelligent.

 

Sixth, you could have written this, but you should feel lucky to read this. You can still write something like this and when you do, you will do yourself a big favor. Writing can set the stage for a different way of speaking, but only if this writing is about speaking and listening to your sound while you speak. I know you don’t that, but you could let yourself know with your writing, that it is true what I have written here.

 

Seventh, I throw these words out there, because I can and I feel good about doing that. It is my thing. I hope you read them, but if you don’t, I have had the great pleasure of writing them. These words are for me. If they matter to you, they must matter because your words matter to you, just like these words do.  

 

Eight, I write my own texts to already existing songs, which I can play on my ukulele. Today, I played and sang my version of “Somewhere over the rainbow”.  I had written this song already quite some time ago and, since I like it so much, I had sang it more than  my other songs, but today, I sang it in a way, I never sang it before. I always sing about my EL and my LE.

 

Nine, since I put myself to the task of writing ten points, coming to number nine, I have arrived at a sense of completion. I am almost done, but it is no big deal to me. I just write what I am able to write and what I want to write and that is so satisfying. I  will write one more and then I’ll be done and I now also experience a sense a preparedness for the day.

 

Ten, I did what I set out to do, with words, with EL. This is what I always do and it never bores me. To the contrary, just when it seems to get more of the same, I achieve a new understanding about myself. Surely, EL is about self-knowledge and my LE is my always evolving and increasing self-knowledge. I don’t know everything, but I certainly know enough.   

 

History,

 

I like to address again the hilarious fact – I am so delighted to continue with this – that our Embodied Language (EL) illustrates to us and lets us hear, that we don’t have a so-called mind and our presumed thinking, is merely a matter of speaking and writing about how we are speaking. When we talk about our so-called mind, we call it our mind, because we talk about it. Each time we speak about thoughts, we speak with certain sounds about these thoughts, which we, presumably, are having, in such a way, that we keep getting carried away by what we say.

 

Only a rudimentary knowledge about biology and neuroscience is necessary, to be able to understand that, inside of our heads, inside of our brains, there are no words, sentences, concepts, ideas or beliefs. All of these only come out of our mouths, when we speak with a sound or when we write about what, supposedly, happens inside of us. Regardless of how used we all are, to be talking about, reading about, hearing about and writing about ourselves, as if we have experiences, as if there is someone inside of us, who experiences something, this doesn’t change anything about the ignored reality, that how we speak about ourselves, is stupid and problematic.

 

People are considered to have dreams, ambitions, convictions, perceptions, motivations, memories, fears and fantasies, but the only thing, which they have to account for all these verbalizations, is their language, that is, they speak, listen, write or read. These four behaviors determine our language and are also involved in how we deal with our language. However, how we speak and listen, sets the stage for how we read and write. This writing derives from my EL, but your reading of my writing, most likely, derives from your Disembodied Language (DL).

 

Since you don’t know the difference between DL and EL, you keep being involved in DL and you have no experience or understanding of ongoing EL. I would like you to read this writing, as if you already know about EL, even though, I know very well, this isn’t so. It doesn’t matter, if you, supposedly, know about EL or not, because, as I have just stated, there is no you, who knows EL or doesn’t know it. The difference between knowing and not knowing only matters in DL, but is no big deal, when you have EL.

 

You too could have written these words and could have engaged in EL, instead of your usual way of talking: DL. Reading of this text, is not your usual experience, as you read these words, without your usual sense of who you are. There is no need to pretend, as if there is an entity, you, who is reading and who is understanding this, as this identity, you have believed in, for so long, doesn’t exist. What does exist, are these words and your attention for these words – which would even be enhanced, if you would read them out loud and listen to the sound of your calm voice – which appeal to your English history of conditioning with language.

 

Your ability to read and understand this doesn’t require an imaginary, behavior-causing, inner agent, who, presumably, does the reading and does the understanding, however, there has to have been a history of using this language, for these words to make any sense to you. Moreover, leaving out the  always distorting effects of your usual reference to you, as the reader, there is only reading going on. Also, there is no understander, as there is only effortless understanding going on, as there really is nobody inside of you, who does the understanding.

 

I assume, because of my EL, you are perfectly fine, reading and understanding this text, without any need, to refer to a reader, who presumably reads or an understander, who supposedly understands. It is, of course, also possible, to listen without referring to the listener, who presumably listens; to speak, but without any sense of supposedly being the speaker, who speaks; or to write, without having to refer to yourself, as the writer, who writes. For me, there is only this writing, but there isn’t and there never was, an author, who, supposedly, decided to write this. Anyone could only write, understand or speak these words, if he or she had some history with this English language. This is why you engage in DL and not in EL. Surely, your history with DL, like any other relationship you have had, could come to an end and you could have, due to EL, in principle, a totally different relationship with your language.

 

I repeat once more, there is no you, inside of you, to have a relationship with your language, there is only your affiliation with language, which is afforded to you by your history of conditioning. Surely, there is only this language, as it is read and understood by you, yet, there is no you, who understands this, as this entity, who supposedly understands, isn’t real and is merely a figure of DL-speech. So, while it is true, that you can say, hear, read or write about, what you or what someone else does, you don’t speak it, yet it is spoken, you don’t hear it, yet it is heard, you don’t write it, yet it is written and you don’t read it, yet it is read. Stated differently, in EL, these words speak for themselves, but in DL, you pretend to speak them, hear them, write them, own them, understand them, reject them, accept them or forget them. None of this happens or has ever happened in EL and this realization is your Language Enlightenment (LE), which, of course, extends to all your other behaviors. You walk, but there is no walker inside of you, who walks and, yes, you may even chew gum, while you walk, but there is neither someone inside of you, who does the walking, nor someone, who does the chewing or someone, who, supposedly, does these two things, simultaneously.              

 

Volgorde,

 

Onze manier van taalgebruik heeft altijd een uitkomst, die klopt en dus ordelijk is of niet. Simpel gezegd, onze Belichaamde Taal (BT) is het verbale gedrag, dat orde en dus vrede schept en handhaaft, maar in Ontlichaamde Taal (OT) zijn we onlogisch en creëren we wanorde en chaos. Ik geniet van het mooie, fascinerende, fundamentele feit, dat mijn BT, mijn Taal Verlichting (TV) blijft onthullen, omdat ik,  net als een wiskundige, een volgorde erken van de  stappen en handelingen, die nou eenmaal dienen te worden gedaan, om tot het juiste antwoord te kunnen komen. Als mijn antwoord klopt, heb ik mijn taal correct gebruikt, maar als de uitkomst van mijn acties resulteert in iets wat ik niet wil, moet ik iets verkeerd hebben gedaan, dan moet ik mezelf iets hebben verteld, wat gewoon niet waar was.

 

De volgorde van bewerkingen, is een verzameling van regels, die conventies weerspiegelen, over welke procedures eerst moeten worden uitgevoerd om een ​​bepaalde wiskundige uitdrukking te evalueren. Wiskunde is natuurlijk ook een taal, maar met BT, bekijken we dus onze taal op een wiskundige of wetenschappelijke manier. Zonder orde, zou onze taal volkomen zinloos zijn en is dat daarom meestal ook. Wanneer we uiteindelijk, rationeel en realistisch, onze aandacht brengen naar de gebruikelijke wijze waarop wij met taal om te gaan – door naar onszelf te luisteren en met onszelf te spreken – en door BT te hebben, in plaats van OT, dan komen we tot de onvermijdelijke conclusie, dat we onze taal verkeerd hebben gebruikt.

 

Net als bij de volgorde van bewerkingen in de wiskunde, moeten bepaalde dingen eerst in onze taal precies worden gezegd of geschreven, voordat we kunnen overgaan tot andere dingen, dat wil zeggen, tot een ander of tot een veranderd, gezonder en effectiever gedrag, dat – hoe dan ook, of we het nu willen weten of niet of we ons bewust zijn ervan of niet – wordt bepaald door onze taal.

 

In algebra klas 101 hadden we al moeten leren, dat vermenigvuldigen voorrang krijgt boven optellen. De eenvoudige algebraïsche uitdrukking 1+2x3 wordt bijvoorbeeld geïnterpreteerd als de waarde 1+ (2x3)=7, maar niet als (1+2) x3=9. Het is duidelijk, dat eerst 2x3 moet gebeuren, voordat we 6+1 kunnen optellen. Als we eerst 1+2=3 zouden optellen en dan pas 3x3=9 vermenigvuldigen, dan krijgen we een fout antwoord. Zulke onzin is een formule voor een ongelukkige manier van leven.    

 

Analoog aan de wiskunde, zouden we in BT zeggen, dat aandacht voor onze individuele ervaring – door naar onszelf te luisteren, terwijl we spreken – op de eerste plaats moet komen, om te kunnen begrijpen wat er met ons gebeurt, in ons eigen leven en alleen, daarna, klop de optel som, van wat wij ervaren. We kunnen natuurlijk alleen naar onszelf luisteren, als we eerst hardop met onszelf zouden praten. In de wiskunde, is dit te vergelijken met het gebruik van exponenten, die dan, op hun beurt, weer voorrang krijgen op zowel optellen als vermenigvuldigen. Als je 3 + 52 probeert op te lossen, moet je 3 +(5x5)= 28 doen – niet (3+5)x8=64 – en om 3 × 52 op te lossen moet je 3x(5x5)=75 doen – niet (3x5) )x15= 225.

 

Net als in de wiskunde, is het ook in ons taalgebruik  noodzakelijk, om voorrangsconventies te omzeilen of simpelweg te kunnen benadrukken. BT erkent de rationele stel regel: wij geven aandacht, aan alles wat de aandacht vraagt. Wiskundig ziet het er zo uit: bij (2 + 3) × 4 = 20 moet optellen voorafgaan aan vermenigvuldigen en bij (3 + 5)2 = 64 komt ook eerst het optellen en dan pas het machtsverheffen aan de orde. Het gaat dus heel simpel en gewoon om het hebben van de juiste prioriteiten. Om orde te scheppen, moeten we wiskundig, wetenschappelijk, de volgorde van gedrag in onze taal rangschikken.  

 

Er is een groot verschil tussen iemand niet willen horen en het verschil erkennen tussen OT en BT. Als we weigeren om te luisteren, naar wat iemand wil zeggen en we ze proberen te negeren of hun mond te snoeren, dan houden we ons bezig met OT, maar als we de totaal verschillende resultaten van OT en BT erkennen, dan geven we natuurlijk de voorkeur aan BT. Ons vermogen om OT echt te herkennen voor de ellende die het voortbrengt en dus voor wat het werkelijk is, zorgt ervoor, dat we er minder snel aan deel zullen nemen, wat dus niet hetzelfde is als ertegen zijn. Tegen OT zijn, is net zo stom als eraan meedoen, want het betekent, dat we erbij betrokken zijn. In BT zijn we niet tegen OT, omdat we er geen tijd en energie meer aan willen verspillen. Als we het verschil weten, tussen de manier van omgaan met taal van hoe we geconditioneerd zijn en de manier van omgaan met taal, waarvan we ons bewust werden, door onze voortdurende BT, dan willen we alleen maar doorgaan met onze BT. Dit gebeurt moeiteloos en natuurlijk, helemaal vanzelf.

 

We kunnen alleen weten dat OT OT is en dat BT BT is, door te erkennen dat OT OT is en dat BT BT is en door dus BT te hebben en door te blijven gaan met BT. Ik merk, tijdens dit schrijven, dat ik blij verrast ben, door hoe mijn leven en, inderdaad, echt al mijn andere gedrag, hierdoor ten goede is veranderd. Aanvankelijk, na het ontdekken van BT, had ik sterk de neiging om OT af te wijzen, maar dat is gelukkig niet langer het geval. Ik veroordeel OT niet, maar ga er nu gewoon mee om zoals het is. Voor mij is OT schadelijk en daarom probeer ik er zoveel mogelijk bij vandaan te blijven. Terwijl ik dit schrijf, ben ik mijn bewust van mijn eigen vermogen – dat er zeker niet altijd was – om uit de buurt van OT te kunnen blijven, hoewel ik er natuurlijk, net als iedereen, dag in dag uit, door wordt omringd.

 

Ik voel me niet meer zo beïnvloed door OT ​​zoals vroeger, aangezien ik nu bij mijn eigen BT kan blijven, maar geef toe, dat dit tot voor kort nog niet het geval was. Mijn BT heeft me zowel een gevoel van bescherming als begrenzing gegeven, wat mijn bewustzijn van wie ik ben heeft gestabiliseerd. Omdat mijn BT betrekking heeft op het sensitief, verbaal en intiem zijn met mezelf, heeft het me rationeler en begripvoller gemaakt over hoe ik mijn leven wil leiden. BT gaat over mijn kernwaarden, die hoorbaar, begrepen en dus gegarandeerd zijn.

 

Wat ik vanmorgen wilde zeggen, is niet wat ik 's middags of 's avonds wil zeggen. Elk moment van de dag wil ik iets anders zeggen en ben ik benieuwd om erachter te komen wat het is, want tenzij ik het zeg of schrijf, weet ik het niet en kan ik het ook niet weten. Mensen zeggen vaak, dat ze wachten, hopen, bidden of mediteren voor inspiratie, maar ik doe dat  nooit, omdat ik zeg en schrijf, wat er met me aan de hand is. Mijn ervaring is constant in beweging en ik hou van mijn vermogen, om dit in taal om te zetten.

 

Mijn BT maakt het mogelijk om trouw te blijven aan mijn eigen ervaring. Ik leef, om mijn manier van leven uit te drukken met mijn BT, dat is wat ik doe. Voor mij neemt BT en het onvermijdelijke positieve resultaat, TV, de plaats in van wat mensen met OT,  religie, spiritualiteit, psychologie, filosofie, rede, moraliteit, waarheid of realiteit noemen. Niet zozeer mijn acties zijn belangrijk, maar de gevolgen van mijn acties. De meeste mensen blijven maar OT  hebben, omdat ze zich niet realiseren, dat alles wat er in hun leven gebeurt, wordt bepaald door hoe ze omgaan met taal. In OT geloven mensen, dat ze OT  moeten kunnen blijven houden, zoals een Christen het geloof in God wil blijven behouden. Ze zijn ervan overtuigd, dat het goede resultaten oplevert, maar alle goed-gelovigen zijn misleid en houden zichzelf voor de gek, door te geloven, dat hun manier van omgaan met taal, de moeite waard is. Het feit is, dat ze, vanwege hun gefantaseerde belangrijke geloof, er nooit naar hebben gekeken. Aangezien BT gaat over het luisteren naar onszelf, terwijl we praten, hebben ze er nog nooit naar geluisterd, omdat ze nog nooit echt met zichzelf hebben gepraat. Als ze met zichzelf zouden praten, dan zouden ze, net als ik, erachter komen, dat de resultaten van hun gebruikelijke  manier van praten – en hun geloof in OT – het toneel vormen voor de tegenstrijdige, tragische, verwarde manier ,waarop ze hun leven leiden: tevergeefs offeren ze alles op, om vast te kunnen blijven houden aan hun bijgeloof. Er kan alleen dan pas een einde komen aan hun OT, als ze de verschrikkelijke gevolgen, die OT altijd heeft veroorzaakt, beginnen te zeggen en te erkennen. Met onze OT creëren we ieder onze eigen levende hel, maar met onze BT creëren we onze heerlijke,  unieke hemel: TV is een geordende wijze van leven.

 

Order,

 

Our way of using language always has an outcome, which is orderly or not. Simply stated, our Embodied Language (EL) is the verbal behavior, which creates and maintains order and, therefore, peace, but our Disembodied Language (DL), creates and maintains disorder and, therefore, chaos. I delight about the beautiful, fascinating, foundational fact, that my EL reveals my Language Enlightenment (LE), because, like a mathematician, I recognize, I have to follow an order of operations, to get to the correct answer. When my answer checks, I have used my language correctly, but when the outcome of my actions results in something I don’t like or want, I must have done something wrong, I must have been telling myself something, which simply wasn’t true.

 

The order of operations, is a collection of rules that reflect conventions about which procedures to perform first, in order to to evaluate a given mathematical expression. Of course, mathematics is a language, but, with EL, we view our language in a mathematical or scientific manner. Without order our language would be utterly meaningless. When we, finally, rationally, realistically, consider our usual way of dealing with our own language, by listening to ourselves while we speak and by engaging in EL, instead of DL, we come to the inevitable conclusion, that we have been using our language incorrectly.

 

Similarly to the order of operations in mathematics, certain things have to be done first, in our language, before we are able to proceed to other things, that is, to other behaviors, which are, whether we know it or not or are aware of it or not, determined by our language. In college algebra class 101, we should have already learned, that multiplication is granted higher precedence than addition. For instance, the simple algebraic expression 1+2x3, is interpreted to have the value 1+ (2x3)=7, but not, (1+2) x3=9. Clearly, 2x3 must happen first, before we can add 6+1. If we would add 1+2=3 first and only then multiply 3x3=9, we would get a wrong answer.

 

Analogously to mathematics, we would say in EL, that paying attention to our individual experience, by listening to ourself while we speak, has to come first, to be able to make sense of what is happening to us, in our lives and only, after that, does it add up. We can, of course, only listen to ourselves, if we would first speak with ourselves. In mathematics, this can be compared to use of exponents, which are given precedence over both addition as well as multiplication. If you try to solve 3 + 5² you will have to do 3 +(5x5)= 28, but not (3+5)x8=64 and to solve 3 × 5² you must do 3x(5x5)=75, not (3x5)x15= 225.

 

Just like in mathematics, in our use of language, it is also absolutely necessary, to override precedence conventions or to simply be able to emphasize them. For example with (2 + 3) × 4 = 20 addition must precede multiplication, while (3 + 5)² = 64 forces addition to exponentiation. Surely, to create order, mathematics, science and thus, the order of operations, must also be applied to our language.

 

There is a great difference between not wanting to hear someone and knowing the difference between DL and EL. When we don’t want to listen to what someone is saying and try to ignore them or shut them up, we engage in DL, but if we acknowledge the different results of DL and EL, we prefer EL. Our ability to recognize DL for what it is, makes us less likely to participate in it, which is not the same as being against it. Being against DL, is as stupid as engaging in it, as it means, we are involved in it. In EL, we are not against DL, as we no longer waste our time and energy on it. If we know the difference between the way of dealing with language from how we were conditioned and the way of dealing with language, we became aware of due to our ongoing EL, we only want to continue with our EL. This happens effortlessly and naturally, all by itself.  

 

We can only know, that DL is DL and EL is EL and recognize, that DL is DL and EL is EL, by having EL and by continuing with EL. I find myself happily amazed by how my life and, really, all my other behavior, has changed for the better. Initially, after discovering EL, I strongly felt like rejecting DL, but this is no longer the case. I don’t judge DL, but simply deal with it, as it is. To me, DL is detrimental and, therefore, I try to stay away from it as much as I possibly can. While I’m writing this, I’m impressed by my own ability – which certainly wasn’t always there – to stay away from DL, although, of course, like everyone else, I am surrounded by it, every day.

 

I don’t feel as affected by DL anymore in the way that I used to, since I can now stay with my own EL, but I admit, this wasn’t until recently the case. My EL has given me both a sense of protection and boundaries, which have stabilized my awareness of who I am. Since my EL pertains to being sensitive, verbal and intimate with myself, it has made me more rational and understanding about how I want to live my life. To me, EL is about my core values, which are apparent and, therefore, guaranteed.

 

What I wanted to say this morning, is not what I want to say in the afternoon or in the evening. Each moment of the day, I want to say something else and I really like to find out what it is, because unless I say it or write it, I don’t know, I can’t know, what it is. People say, they are waiting for inspiration, but I never do that, as I say and write what is going on with me. My experience is in a constant flux and I  love my ability to capture this with my language.

 

My EL makes it possible to always be true to my own experience. I live, to express my way of life with my EL. That is what I do. For me, EL and it’s inevitable positive result, my LE, takes the place of what people with DL refer to as religion, spirituality, psychology, philosophy, reason, morality, truth or reality. Not so much my actions are important, but the consequences of my actions. Most people keep having DL, because they don’t realize, everything that happens in their life, is determined by it. In DL, people believe they should have DL. According to them, it results in good outcomes. However, they have been deluded and they fool themselves into believing, that their way of dealing with language is worth their while. The fact is, that they have never looked into it. Actually, since EL is about listening to ourselves while we speak, they have never listened into it. If they would speak with themselves, they would, like me, find out, the results of their usual way of talking – DL – sets the stage for the conflicted way they live their lives: they sacrifice everything, to hang on to their superstitions. Their DL can only come to an end, if they can begin to acknowledge the terrible outcomes it creates. With DL, we create our own living hell, but with EL, we create our own heaven: LE is an orderly way of life.

 Is,

 

Now that I have ongoing Embodied Language (EL) and no longer care about, whether you are going to have EL with me or not, everything simply is what it is. I am so happy, to come home after a day of work. I write like this, because I enjoy my own words and have faith, they will address something important.

 

You probably don’t understand, why my language is different from yours. You are going to be annoyed about my ability to shed light on your Disembodied Language (DL). My analysis of your idiotic DL isn’t like anything you have ever heard.  Although you read this, it isn’t difficult to imagine, what I would sound like, when I speak with my EL about your DL. I sound calm, relaxed, certain, happy, lively & honest.   

 

Nowadays, we hear a lot about certain words, that, supposedly, are more important than others. This is total nonsense, but, not coincidentally, it happens to be the basic characteristic of DL. Whenever it is, presumably, necessary for you, to mark my words, what I say, takes the context – your attention – away from how I say it. In DL, the speaker, in one way or another, behaves as if he or she is more important than the listener. By dominating, manipulating and coercing the listener, the DL speaker expresses and expects, the listener to be incapable of detecting his or her sleight of hand. In DL, the speaker’s fixation on words, distracts the listener from how the speaker is speaking. We only pay lip-service to how we say it,  but never listen to ourselves, while we speak. This is why we engage mainly in DL, but almost never in EL.

 

Although we can all hear, whether a speaker’s tone of voice is demanding or not, we never pay enough attention to this insidious aspect of our usual way of talking – by listening to ourselves while we speak – to be able to stop our DL and have EL. Moreover, as listeners, we generally do what we are supposed to, that is, we obediently listen to some authority, who is, obviously, not us. Since most people, around the world, unknowingly, continue to do as they were told, DL is the way of talking of every culture and only a handful of people basically do all the talking.

 

Each historical out-cry for cultural change, was and is merely a matter of people, who are, literally, so to speak, demanding to be heard. Consequently, our DL has never been properly addressed and has continued unabated. Regardless of how much noise and problems we keep creating, with our abusive  way of dealing with our language, DL is everywhere, because we all still, unconsciously, tend to do as we were told, by speakers, who are not us. This even applies to the speakers, who dominate others, as they are completely estranged from themselves. In effect, the DL speaker, is always totally dissociated and disconnected from him or herself. If he or she   listens to him or herself – yes, reader, genders still matter –  he or she would notice, that he or she speaks with a sound, which isn’t his or hers and which he or she, him or herself doesn’t even like. A lot is being said these days about body or gender dysphoria, but nobody ever addresses the fact that in DL, we speak with an unnatural, effortful voice. Of course, the opposite happens, if we engage in EL.

 

Let’s now consider some words, which presumably are more important than who you are. Those who speak these words, which give them power over others, are constantly punishing, humiliating and disrespecting the listener and, as stated, they are, of course, also beating themselves up and imprisoning themselves, as their language distracts them from who they really are. It is in this context, that the insane insistence, everywhere, on the words equity, diversity and inclusion, inadvertently, informs us about our insensitive way of talking, which is DL.

 

Those, who want to dominate and control others, always do so, by creating their own narrative. Thus, they say, that equity, in its simplest terms, as it relates to racial and social justice, means meeting communities where they are and allocating resources and opportunities as needed, to create equal outcomes for all the community members. Presumably, equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and needs and those who advocate for equity believe, that different groups of people need different resources and opportunities provided to them in order to thrive. Clearly, not a word is mentioned here about the way of talking, which, only pays lip-service to the individual, as it   emphasizes social and racial groups of people.

 

If you don’t believe what I am saying, here is a typical introduction from a course, which is given to the employees of corporations around the world. Question: What is diversity, equity and inclusion? Answer: Diversity, equity and inclusion are three closely linked values held by many organizations that are working to be supportive of different groups of individuals, including people of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, and sexual orientations. It clearly is what sociologist have called group-think. And, there is gender-, age-, ethnic-, physical ability- (but not, of course, about the physical ability, which refers to the biological fact, that men are stronger than women and that men posing as women, will, eventually, outcompete all the women, in every sport) and neuro-diversity.

 

I hope you can still remember, my writing started out with an analysis of our usual, mechanical, coercive way of talking, which is DL, in which we keep telling each other, in one way or another, how to talk. Here is a good illustration of what I am talking about. We may even receive the Nobel Prize for – make no mistake – forcing how people should talk. Whenever people speak about changing the way in which people supposedly think, they are really talking about changing the way in which they speak. R. Thaler has as much, but, most likely, more DL, then the people he is teaching. In an interview with McKinsey, on debiasing the corporation, the great professor said “There’s lots of talk about diversity these days. We tend to think about that in terms of things like racial diversity and gender diversity and ethnic diversity. Those things are all important. But, it’s also important to have diversity in how people think.” Do I need to say more? It speaks for itself.

 

I almost forgot to write something about inclusion. The holy trinity wouldn’t be complete without some feel-good stuff about – are you ready for this? – the fulfillment of what appears to be a real need: we all want our voice to be heard. Yes, in DL, we endlessly demand, that others listen to us, while, in fact, we aren’t even hearing ourselves. Supposedly, if what we say is not valued, we are not motivated and we under-perform. However, only in EL, can we truly be ourselves, which means, we don’t have any urge to be included within or belong to a group. Moreover, with EL, we never feel excluded, which means, it is only our DL, which makes us feel we don’t belong. Lastly, we can only have ongoing EL, if we become conscious about and take care of our own needs and stop depending on others to do for us, what we can only do for ourselves. EL is the way of talking in which we attain our Language Enlightenment (LE), which is the ultimate experience of inclusivity.

 

Reason,

 

The fact that nobody – not even we ourselves – can tell us how to talk, signifies the end of our negative   Disembodied Language (DL). The reason this isn’t as clear to us as it should be, is because we are in denial about the reality, that our DL is on it’s deathbed. The times, that speakers can continue to dominate listeners are finished, for good. While we continue to do everything, to avoid considering the major implications of this quintessential event in the history of mankind, the unraveling and unmasking of our problematic, habitual, dumb DL is already happening and is only going to happen even more. 

 

While few people have some understanding about why our mechanical way of talking and our usual way of dealing with language clearly isn’t working, it is evident to anyone, who knows about the great  difference between our DL and Embodied Language (EL), we keep creating more problems with what we are doing. DL is always about what others have said or written. Even if we try to listen to ourselves, the chances, we really hear ourselves, are very small to non-existent. Our own voice continuously overrules what we sound like, if, for some reason, we don’t sound how we usually sound. Thus, our EL separates us from everyone with DL, which is… everyone.

 

Reason – defined as the ability to form and operate concepts in abstraction, in accordance with logic and rationality – has a long history in philosophy, but nobody has ever connected the dots, that our common, coercive, punitive, mechanical, insensitive way of talking, DL, is unreasonable. Until today, we  have lived with the mere illusion of reason. Strictly speaking (pun intended), we couldn’t have lost all reason, as we never attained the ability in the first place, to use our language correctly and engage EL.

 

As the definition and, therefore, our understanding  about reason itself suggests, there is this ancient  assumption, that we have a mind or a conscience and can talk covertly, privately, silently, abstractly, with ourselves, instead of with others. However, it is our way of talking itself or rather, the ubiquity of DL, which creates and sustains this fallacy. The abstract aspect of reason, is based on the unintelligent way of talking, in which we don’t listen to ourselves and, consequently, begin to imagine things, to fill in the gaps, because so many things simply remain unsaid.

 

Abstract, comes from Latin, abstrahere. It has the word-forming element ab, which means, away from, denoting separation, disjunction or departure and trahere to draw. Abstrahere means to drag away, pull, detach or divert. Furthermore, abstract also contains the word tract, which comes from Latin tractus and means track, course, space, duration or lapse of time. Our commonly accepted so-called ability to reason abstractly and presumably create and form ideas and concepts, inside of our heads,  which are – doesn’t that sound circular to you? – in accordance with rationality and logic, is based on being dissociated and disconnected from our body. Debate or discussion about the nature, limits and causes of reason, has never involved any EL, but always DL and, not surprisingly, always gave more importance to written, than to spoken language.      

 

The etymology of reason is also worth looking into. It derives from the Latin word rationem, which means reckoning, understanding, motive or cause. Also, the concept of reason itself, is, of course – how could it be otherwise? – connected to our language, that is, not to the concept of language, but to our embodied or disembodied experience of language. The ancient Greek word logos, which means word, or discourse, is also related to reason. Rationality, reason or logic are associated, not with the fictitious human mind, but with the way in which we actually talk with each other and, therefore, create order or disorder. Reason can be synonymously used with the word cause, because once we have ongoing EL, we become rational about everything, we were emotionally carried away about, due to our DL.  

 

Since there is no inner me, who does the speaking or the reasoning; since there is no inner listener, who does the listening or the understanding; since there is only speaking and listening and this writing about this speaking and listening; since there is, at this moment, your reading of this writing; since there is, of course, no reader inside of you, who reads and understands; since there is only the living act of reading and your experience of understanding (if you didn’t know English, these words would be meaningless); since speaking, listening, writing and reading are real activities, which express what we are capable of or not, we engage in EL or DL. In DL, we underperform, because we remain irrational.    

 

Compare,

 

Enlightenment was never before approached and expressed, by anyone, in the way I do. By listening to myself, while I speak, I first became aware about my own Disembodied Language (DL). Like everyone else, I just sound terrible, whenever I engage in DL. Moreover, I too don’t like to hear my DL, as it always expresses my negativity. This is as true for me, as it is for everyone else. The difference with me is: I am able to listen to the sound of my negativity. To me, this it is not about acceptance, but awareness.

 

Anyone, who can speak and listen, can listen to his or her own sound, while he or she speaks and hear the great difference between the expression of his or her positive or negative experiences. Thus, if we would take time, to talk aloud, alone, with ourselves and pay attention to how we sound while we speak, we find, we have the ability, to precisely identify when we engage in Embodied Language (EL) or DL.

 

Once the immensely important difference between DL and EL has been discriminated, there is no way in which we can deny the obvious fact, that we prefer to engage in EL rather than in DL, however, we keep unconsciously, mechanically and habitually engaging in DL, without realizing it, because we have been conditioned to talk in such a manner, that we only listen to others, not to ourselves. In other words, we are used to DL, a way of speaking and dealing with language, in which the speaker is someone else.

 

In EL, you are the speaker as well as the listener. Of course, it is annoying, self-defeating, upsetting, depressing and energy-draining, to listen to, to feel, to experience and to hear, the sound of your own speaking voice, which expresses your frustration, stress, anxiety, isolation, fear, distrust, confusion, lies and pretention. It totally sucks to do that, but unless you do this, you will never be able to hear the big difference between your DL and your EL.

 

While you may still continue to talk negatively – and, perhaps, seemingly, endlessly, complain, whine or even shout about your meaningless drama, your exaggerated victimhood, your repetitive misery, your usual struggle, your tiring conflict and your irritable dissatisfaction with everything that is, according to you, wrong in your life – there comes a point, when your sound suddenly, surprisingly and effortlessly changes. This is when the switch happens, from DL to EL, since you have expressed, who you really are.          

 

The difference between DL and EL makes one thing instantly clear to you: whether it is your own DL or the DL of others, you hate to hear the sound of it. Conversely, your own EL, as well as the EL of others, sounds like music to your ears. Since you know from the get-go, you have always, unknowingly, preferred EL over DL, you will find, this distinction creates a new priority, goal or purpose for you. Of course, you want to stop your DL and have ongoing EL. It is the  only sane thing to do. Yes, your DL sets the stage for the perpetuation of your mental health problems.

 

I was elaborating on the important notion, that my Language Enlightenment (LE) isn’t like anything, any other so-called enlightened person has ever talked about. As I became conscious about my DL, it began to wither away and – all by itself – my EL continued. I don’t compare myself to anyone, who, supposedly, is or was enlightened, because, ridiculously, nobody is, as I am, emphatically in favor of language. There  never was a so-called guru, master or, self-realized individual, who insisted, as I do, on the importance of listening to ourselves, while we speak, which can only be explored, if we have the audacity, to admit, out loud, to ourselves, that talking with ourselves, is much more important, than talking with others.   

 

Anyone who reads this, knows that writings such as these were never before produced, as no one had the necessary skill to do so. I am well aware, I make bold claims today, but my EL draws it’s inevitable conclusions, because, like millions of others, I too have wasted a lot time, listening to others, instead of speaking with and listening to myself. It is my LE, which expresses itself fully and beautifully, with my ongoing EL.  

 

I have the skill everyone is lacking. Unless you begin to pay attention to and feel somewhat shocked by what I am referring to, there is no way, in which you will ever have the incentive, to stop your stupid DL and become capable of having intelligent EL. Unlike many, supposedly, wise, important, domineering, knowledgeable people, I have the ability, to bring about exactly what I am saying. This means: others don’t learn from me, but from themselves, how to stop their own insensitive DL and have enduring EL.

 

Your ongoing EL is self-evident and self-reinforcing and doesn’t need anyone else’s approval. However, those, who develop EL, will always reinforce each other. If this is not the case, this simply means, they are merely imagining, they are having EL, while they are still talking about their higher power or about supposedly special others, but they don’t talk out loud alone with themselves, about themselves and carefully listen to the sound of their own voice. It is hard to believe, what you read on this blog has such an enormous potential, but it has and your refusal to let yourself know it is so, is your loss. You read all sorts of other crap and listen to all sorts of other total bullshit, but you don’t consider these words to be important enough, to contact me, to talk with me and experience, that every word I say is true.

 

My writing doesn’t have anything to do anymore with me wanting to be heard, recognized or praised, but with getting through to you, because you are not, as you like to believe, wounded or traumatized, but only want to justify your DL as if it is important.  Your DL is as oppressive, humiliating and disgusting as others. By the way, both the oppressor and the oppressed engage endlessly in DL and only in EL do we put a permanent end to this whole rigmarole.

 

So-called enlightened people, have, inadvertently, highjacked your language. All your attention went to them, but never to how you use your own language. Down the ages, people have always distracted each other from paying attention to their way of dealing with language and, therefore, there never really was any difference between someone, who, supposedly, was enlightened and those, who tried and hoped to become enlightened, one day. What people have historically described as enlightenment, was merely another failed attempt –  in the long list of failed attempts – to escape DL. DL has always burdened us with the illusion of transcendence or deliverance, made possible by the abandonment of language.

 

Nobody has ever spoken or written about LE, which requires you to be your own speaker as well as your own listener. There was never a consistent emphasis on you as a speaker, who listens to him or herself. In conclusion, so-called enlightened people haven’t  done zilch about stopping your DL or making you aware about the possibility of having ongoing EL. All of them have only created in you the frantic desire to be like them. I don’t do that. It is very apparent with me, that EL is not about me, but about you. It is going to be the result of your effort and hard work to stop your DL. Yes, you’ll have to get involved with your usual dumb way of dealing with language and fully acknowledge, that you can’t stop yourself from having DL. You don’t need to accept your inability to stop your DL, but you must admit, that because of your history of conditioning, you have utterly failed to change yourself. The fact, that you haven’t been able to change your DL to EL, signifies you haven't been successful in changing any behavior at all. Your DL stops, once you give up trying to stop it and when you are aware, you keep having it, although you don’t want it. Your conditioning history comes to an end, when your language returns again to you.   

Skype: limbicease

Email: mpeperkamp@sbcglobal.net