Afscheid,

 

Belichaamde Taal (BT) is het jezelf hoorbaar maken – aan jezelf – in je eigen taal. Je kunt precies horen of je je positief of negatief voelt. In beide gevallen laat je het gewoon toe. Als je je positief voelt, klink je zo en als je je negatief voelt, dan klink je anders. Vanwege onze gebruikelijke omgang met taal, die ik daarom dus Ontlichaamde Taal (OT) noem, zeggen we, dat we niet echt onszelf zijn, zolang als wij ons nog negatief voelen en alleen onszelf zijn, als wij ons positief voelen. Uiteraard zijn wij onszelf zowel in OT als in BT, maar het grote verschil is, dat wij hierover alleen met BT kunnen praten en in OT dus vast blijven zitten met een totaal verkeerd zelf-beeld.

 

Of we het nou kunnen verwoorden, toegeven en  weten of niet, iedereen doet onbewust pogingen om positief te zijn en te blijven, terwijl we eigenlijk negativiteit ervaren. Dit is een karakteristiek van OT. Vanuit Belichaamde Taal (BT), zijn wij echter in staat om onze emotionele ervaring, onze gevoelens, op een oprechte en dus correcte wijze weer te geven. Als je je dus negatief voelt, dan zeg je dat gewoon aan jezelf en dan hoor je dat ook echt en dan is daar in principe helemaal niks mis mee, omdat je je nou eenmaal zo voelt. Je verandert het niet, terwijl je er met jezelf over praat en je laat het gewoon zo zijn. Je weet vanwege je BT wel wanneer het verandert. Het is niet vanwege een besluit, maar omdat je je bewust bent van wat je nou eigenlijk echt ervaart.  

 

Jou vermogen, om te beseffen of je ervaring positief of negatief is, heeft absoluut niets te maken met positief willen zijn of proberen om niet negatief te zijn. Je bent wie je bent en je klinkt zoals je klinkt. Je doet niets, om anders te klinken dan je klinkt en daarom kun je je echt voelen zoals je je voelt. In BT weet je, of je je nou positief of negatief voelt, dat je echt jezelf bent. Omdat je al je gevoelens toe kunt laten, transformeert alles en wordt alles positief.

 

Ook ik was bezig met van alles en nog wat. Ik geef toe, dat ondanks al mijn goedbedoelde pogingen is er helemaal niets terecht gekomen van wat ik had gewild en heb nagestreefd. Toch voel ik me positief, omdat dit alles nu achter me ligt en ik me er nooit meer mee bezig hoef te houden. Ik hoor dat er iets is veranderd, maar kan nog niet precies zeggen wat het is. Ben ik ineens ouder en wijzer geworden? Is het omdat ik met OT ben opgehouden? Het maakt me niet uit, wat voor een uitleg ik geef en dat voelt heel aangenaam. Mijn connectie met Nederlandse taal is natuurlijk, vanwege mijn emigratie naar de Amerika in 1999, hoofdzakelijk een steeds vager wordende herinnering, omdat ik hier in het Engels spreek, lees, hoor en schrijf. Deze woorden zijn een dankbaar afscheid van de Nederlandse taal, die nog niet eerder met mijn BT had kunnen plaatsvinden.

 

Het is mooi geweest, maar waarschijnlijk ga ik, vanaf nu, verder in het Engels, omdat er geen aanleiding meer is om nog iets in het Nederlands te zeggen. Er is niemand meer in Nederland, waarmee ik nog in contact ben. Nu ik dat zo schrijf, besef ik eveneens, dat behalve mijn vrouw Bonnie, er hier niemand is waarmee ik kan praten over BT. Het is niet droevig of jammer, want het is zoals het is. Ik voel me heel opgewekt over wat er gaat komen, nu het verleden met mijn taal is opgelost. Ik weet, dat het accent is verschoven, van het bezig zijn met BT, naar mijn Taal Verlichting (TV). Het is wonderlijk, hoe zich dat aan  begon te dienen. Het besef dat het dus altijd mijn TV was, die mij BT deed hebben, is onvoorstelbaar.

 

TV gaat echt ons voorstellingsvermogen te boven,  omdat het het einde van taal impliceert. Zo mooi, dat we, net als alle andere dingen in het leven, ook onze taal slechts enige tijd in bruikleen hebben en daarna, als wij doodgaan, teruggeven aan hen, die ermee verder leven. Ook dat hele leer-process van het geboren worden, zonder taal, het ervaren van BT in de vorm van liefde, aandacht en zorg, maar ook de harde realiteit, dat bezielde, onschuldige, gevoelde, oprechte, levende taal slechts een jeugdherinnering was, die met het volwassen worden steeds pijnlijker werd, omdat het grote verschil tussen BT en OT nog niet duidelijk was. Pas toen mijn OT eindelijk tot een einde kwam, kon mijn BT voortduren en kwam de vergankelijkheid, niet in beeld, maar – onvermijdelijk – in het gehoor. Het is natuurlijk vanwege OT, dat we meer gericht zijn op  geschreven taal dan gesproken taal en dus meer aandacht geven aan visuele dan auditieve stimuli.

 

Gedurende OT zijn we niet alleen geobsedeerd door en gefixeerd op het verbale aspect van taal, maar we hebben eveneens zo’n beetje ons hele hebben en houden opgehangen aan wat we kunnen zien. Het oude gezegde: zien is geloven, heeft ons bij de neus genomen, omdat de echte betekenis van onze taal niet geschreven, gelezen en gezien kan worden en dus alleen kan worden gesproken en gehoord.

 

Als wij dan eindelijk horen wat we zeggen en in het luisteren naar onszelf kunnen gaan zeggen, wat nog niet eerder in onze aandacht kon komen, dan blijkt, dat er over de dood niets anders te zeggen valt, dan dat die ontlichaaming al in BT heeft plaatsgevonden. Dit is de conclusive van BT: ook al heeft het leed van OT zijn grip verloren en konden we gelukkig verder gaan met BT, toch kwam, wat wij al waren, voordat we taal hadden en waarin we zullen zijn verdwenen als wij doodgaan, vanwege onze TV boven de tafel. Het is prachtig dit te kunnen zeggen en om afscheid te nemen van de taal als zodanig. Het lijkt wel alsof mijn TV, nu pas volledig tot mij is doorgedrongen, nu ik het zo heb gezegd en gehoord.       

 

Sounding Board,

 

In Disembodied Language (DL), we want others to agree with our opinions. We, so to speak, test the waters, by offering our views, to see if what we say is liked. If the other person is considered to be a good listener, he or she offers so-called feedback, by confirming our ideas or by letting us know, we are off key. This is as far as we usually go with listening. In Embodied Language (EL), on the other hand, we listen to ourselves and decide for ourselves, if we enjoy what we say or not. Stated differently, in DL, we deal with our language very differently, than in EL, as in DL, the other is more important than us,  but in EL, we are more important than anyone else.

 

The profoundly significant difference between DL and EL is the quintessential issue of our time, yet nobody is interested. There is a real reason for this: we simply don’t want others to disagree with us or  dislike us and that is why we continue with our DL. In other words, only if we allow others to reject us, that is, only if we fully accept, that anyone with DL will always disagree with EL, only then, will we be able to step out of our history of conditioning with DL and are we able to have EL, because, only then, our DL has been stopped. Another, more common way of saying this, is that by talking out loud alone with ourselves and by listening to ourselves, we can hear, that we engage in DL and speak from our head  or we engage in EL and we speak from our heart.

 

Speaking your so-called mind, is really saying what you want to say, in the way that you want to say it, but when does that ever happen? When we speak with ourselves alone, we find ourselves capable of saying many things, we couldn’t say to others. More importantly, if we take the time, to check in with ourselves – to listen to ourselves and let ourselves know, not what we are thinking, but what we could only say, if we gave ourselves the permission, to say whatever we wanted to say – we can say things, we should keep to ourselves, because each time we say them to others, it doesn’t seem to matter. While speaking aloud, alone with ourselves and while listening to and enjoying the sound of our natural effortless voice, we finally can say precisely what we wanted to say, without any interference from others and stay with ourselves. This is how we discover our EL and find out, that we can only continue with EL, to the extent that we keep talking with ourselves.

 

There is no mind in EL and we neither express our thoughts, our feelings or our experiences, as we can say whatever we are capable of saying, because we give ourselves the opportunity to say it and to come to know it. Thus, in EL, we acquire self-knowledge in which the distinction between thoughts, feelings, memories, ideas, beliefs, impressions, associations or experiences is irrelevant, because whatever we say consists merely of words or verbal constructs.

 

Quite literally, a sounding board is a board or screen placed over or behind a pulpit or stage, to reflect a speaker’s voice forward. Obviously, it is meant to amplify a speaker’s voice, to give distinctness and sonority to his or her sound, so that the audience can hear him or her. In effect, a sounding board  changes the sound of the speaker, due to which he or she comes across more clearly. Of course, this only deals with other-listening, not self-listening. Besides, in common parlance, being someone’s sounding board, is meant metaphorically, that is, we use others as a means of evaluating our own ideas.

 

In EL, we don’t amplify or do anything in particular with our sound, but in DL, we always try to sound friendly,  strong, certain, decisive, knowledgeable, positive or meaningful, that is, in DL we act how we sound. However, in EL, we listen to ourselves while we speak, which means, we are aware about how we sound. Awareness of the sound of our speaking voice, makes us conscious about our language and therefore of ourselves. Moreover, in EL we literally, unapologetically, deliberately and skillfully love to hear ourselves talk, as we continuously produce only the sound, which we like to hear. Indeed, in EL, we can really truly be ourselves. In DL, by contrast, listening always equals listening to someone else, therefore, in DL, we speak, unconsciously, with a voice, which we ourselves don’t even want to hear and this has many negative consequences.

 

With EL, we are coming into our own. Yesterday, I was talking with my lovely wife Bonnie, about how I kept losing my own EL again and again, because I wanted so badly, to be able to have it with others. Of course, it is absolutely possible and beneficial to have EL with others, but since we were conditioned to have DL, we mechanically want to continue with our DL and avoid the challenge of having ongoing EL. I told Bonnie how relieved I feel, I no longer – as I used to – desire to have EL with others. I described this relief as my Language Enlightenment (LE). She said, but isn’t LE the same as being happy with yourself? I said yes and we laughed together.            

 

Categorically,

 

I reject Disembodied Language (DL), because it is against my dignity, my nature and my intelligence, but, most importantly, I am capable of having and enjoying ongoing Embodied Language (EL). Without EL, DL cannot be stopped and unless one has a clear understanding of the big difference between these two, one is bound to continue with DL, by default, and one only pays lip-service to EL, which then, is presented as a way of improving ourselves, our relationships or communicating more effectively.

 

All of the aforementioned lofty goals don’t get to the real issue of EL: our Language Enlightenment (LE). Stated differently, EL is the way of dealing with language, which makes us realize our LE. However, DL has kept us ignorant, unconscious and conflicted. It has to be stopped and whatever needs to happen, to stop it, is worth it. In my case, it meant giving up on being in contact with the family I was raised in, leaving behind my study of human behavior and, yes, abandoning everyone I previously felt rejected by, who all engaged in DL. I don’t have any business with anyone who continues with DL and it has taken me 64 years to fully and simply admit this to myself.

 

I feel perfectly fine without having any followers. I never needed or wanted them, as I stay true to my EL, which only cares about those few individuals, who have the courage and inclination to do what I have done and turn their back on DL. By no means, this implies, anyone with EL has retreated from the world. Quite to the contrary, anyone who comes to acknowledge the difference between DL and EL, can only continue with EL, if he or she has the integrity and clarity, to live as a nobody among others, who believe themselves to be somebody and treat EL with defensiveness, hostility and superficiality.

 

All my efforts to have EL with others have shown, that I don’t need them, that I’m okay on my own, that my EL wants me to stay with myself and that that is my LE. It is odd to realize, I have bothered so many people, who didn’t want to have EL with me, but now to recognize, that with the disappearance of the other, I have disappeared. The silence, I can now experience is love and tells me that it couldn’t be in any other way. For all these years, I was trying to find out, how I could continue my EL and as long as I was still not entirely clear about that, I would again and again fall back into DL, but I also lost track of my LE. Only recently my EL has revealed my LE properly and has the latter become more important  than the former. As long as I was preoccupied with the continuation of my EL, I had things upside down.

 

It is and it always was my LE, which made me want to express my EL. It is so fantastic to realize this. I feel a great release of energy, which was blocked due to how I dealt with my language. Although I had discovered the difference between DL and EL, there was still a misunderstanding about why I wanted to have EL so badly? How was it possible, I wondered, that I could do this beneficial act and that only so very few people wanted to do this with me? This question has been answered, as it is our LE – who we really are – which makes us want to have EL.

 

You can call LE anything you like: your true self, your no-mind, your aloneness, your dissolvement in love, in sensitivity, in language, in silence and in beauty. I  have arrived at this conclusion, not because I was having EL with others, but because I let my EL take me, where it wanted to go. In the past, I have read many useless books about spirituality, philosophy and psychology and I have often come across the description of what has been called the pathless path, but I categorically disagree with all of that nonsense. Each step I have taken has led me to this  realization and each human being – whether they know it or not – is on their way to this. Nothing can be missed and everything can only find its place due to our language. I don’t care what you call it, but that is a fact. That being said, our language – our EL – of course, is more important than any so-called spiritual path or journey, as our LE is already the case.                    

 

Fame,

 

I have been famous already and my Embodied Language (EL) doesn’t anymore want me to go there. Of course, initially, upon discovering EL, my conditioning history with Disembodied Language (DL) was still very strong and like everyone else, I sought to be famous. I was all over the place, trying to preach the gospel of The Language That Creates Space and willing to accommodate others, so that I could give another workshop, lecture or interview.

 

Although I didn’t know as much about EL as I know today, I was able to pull it off, get a bunch of people together and provide an experience of EL for each of the participants and make a lot of money with it. However, I wasn’t satisfied, as it was always an enormous effort, to find participants to have these brief, but beautiful events, since I wanted my EL or, more importantly, our EL, to continue forever and so, I tried everything I could, to make that happen.

 

Soon after arriving in the United Stated in 1999, I went back to school and studied Psychology for many years, but just before achieving my Ph.D. (I had already done all my course work, was accruing my clinical hours and writing on my dissertation), I withdrew from my studies, as it was painfully clear to me, that nobody was interested in EL. My whole reason for entering this field, had been, to explore and scientifically validate my DL/EL construct.

 

While it was a sad affair at the time, I feel very lucky, I didn’t become a Psychologist, as it surely would have hindered my pursuit of EL. I worked in various mental health jobs and then became a Psychology instructor at Butte College, where I, so to speak, had a regular audience of students, to teach about EL.

 

After years of teaching and introducing hundreds of students and faculty, to what I then called Sound Verbal Behavior, it was apparent, that to be able to continue with my EL, I needed to put this teaching career behind me. While most students really enjoyed my classes and I was able to teach EL and mainstream Psychology, EL showed why Psychology had totally failed us. For a while, I felt drawn to the marvelous work of B.F. Skinner, as it appeared to provide the scientific basis, I had been looking for. However, as a self-studied behaviorist, I had, due to my knowledge about the DL/EL distinction, my own interpretations and, consequently, I was accepted only by very few scientists and academicians, as I never really felt motivated to publish a paper on EL.   

 

My tendency to study,  which never seemed to subside – as an Associate Faculty in Psychology, I had free access to all the scientific journals and wrote many ferocious responses on my Facebook – came to an end after I read the book About Science, Life and Reality by L. Fraley. I hope that everyone, who is interested in EL, will read about his Behaviorology, as it details, how we individually create and live in our own reality. Needless to say, neither Fraley nor other Behaviorologists showed any interest in the obvious fact, that we, of course, each create and live in the reality, which is maintained by our language.

 

I feel so relieved, I was able to pull away from being a Seminar Leader and being involved in Psychology, Therapy, Behaviorism, Behaviorology and Education. For all these years, I had kept, unknowingly, busy with others, but now I have arrived at a stage in my life, where EL reveals my Language Enlightenment (LE). Although I have known about my LE since my early twenties, I felt, I didn’t have the right way to speak about it, as I was still continuously drawn into DL again and again. This has dramatically changed and although there are and probably will always be, remnants of my history with DL, I am very sure, that it always was my LE, which wanted me to have EL.

 

I suddenly feel a sense of completion, I have never before felt. I am no longer trying to reach anyone. This writing is my EL, which is always about the unfolding of my LE. If you happen to read this, you could have this EL too and know your LE. It is for everyone and it is priceless. I feel so satisfied, that I can now speak and write so freely about my LE with my EL.        

 

 

Blissful,

 

I feel blissful today. I know very well how this wonderful experience happened to me. Strangely enough, I don't feel that I have done anything for it, although it is of course absolutely true that I have done everything for it. How could anyone write or say such a thing? Very simple: by talking to himself or herself out loud and thereby being able to listen to his or her own voice, which tells him or her that his or her language really is all his or her own.

 

Embodied Language (EL) is appropriating our language for ourselves. This is not about taking a position or having a certain belief, because the irrefutable self-evidence that we experience is possible from the space that we have created with our own language. The battle in which everyone with Disembodied Language (DL) is involved no longer takes place, because our language is really  embodied and so we can remain in the here and now, while speaking, listening, writing or reading.

 

Although there is always something new being said, heard, understood, discovered, explored, revered or  created, there is no identification whatsoever with the words and phrases that by themselves describe what may come. Dissolving our language in the heart-space we are discussing gives an enormous peace that cannot be achieved in any other way.

People often speak of the need for so-called 

calming of our turbulent minds, but those 

who can have EL know that anyone who 

speaks of their language in that way is 

subconsciously living and acting from DL. 

There is simply no mind for those who have

 EL and the settling down, in the language 

that creates space, only became possible 

because the language that occupied 

space has finally ceased.

 

EL is not the opposite of DL, but what happens when DL doesn't take place. Initially, we tend to view DL from our old conditioning with the dualistic DL, in which we always talk about the other, who seems to prevent us from staying with ourselves. Because of EL, we can finally focus on ourselves. In DL the appearance is kept up that we are talking to each other - and therefore never to ourselves - but in EL it is very clear to us, that talking to ourselves makes the real conversation with others possible.

 

Reaching the other with language is always an extension of experiencing ourselves and everything is exactly as it should be. In the absence of verbal attention for our own experience, however, there is always a tendency to fill what may be called our greatest lack. Everyone tries, unnoticed, to fill the void, which is experienced as a negative emotion. Acknowledging and allowing those negative feelings with impunity, in our language, causes an effortless  transformation, making even our most chaotic, evil, fanatical, cramped, confused, bizarre and perverse experiences meaningful and valuable. There is so much that, because of our own DL, has gone unsaid, to ourselves. And, yes, of course, it takes time and conversation to catch up with ourselves, but once we acknowledge the difference between DL an EL, we suddenly find ourselves having both the time and the energy to get into talking with ourselves.

 

Writing about DL and EL has a different function than talking aloud to ourselves. In listening to ourselves, we come into direct contact with what matters to us, in the moment we speak to ourselves, but in writing about it, a process of reasoning takes place that makes us rational, about how we feel.

 

In writing about EL - to ourselves - we become more rational about our emotions, while in speaking to ourselves, about what we experience, we become more and more emotional, because we can really finally experience, what we experience, because our language has become attuned to our experience. Of course this has to do with how we sound and so, in talking to ourselves, we can still sound very ugly, restless, hateful, annoying, paranoia, insensitive, superficial, vulgar, lost and nagging. To ourselves, we would rather never talk about this at all and because others usually did not want to listen to it, we do not want to hear it from ourselves either. In talking to ourselves, however, there is no avoiding this, and we say, albeit begrudgingly, everything that bothers us, however futile, reprehensible, mad, exhausting, unpleasant, ridiculous, against the grain, sad or disturbing. Precisely the expression of what we most dislike makes us step out of our DL.

 

There is often talk of the so-called necessity, which would exist, to simply accept the discomfort and negativity in conversation with others, because the other, so to speak, confronts us with the so-called facts, which we might be inclined to deny. In that case, there is always a power relationship, in which the person, who is supposedly allowed to say it as it supposedly is, takes the lead and with his or her DL dominates the other, who must submissively accept this unquestioningly and basically suck it all up, in order to be able to ‘really’ take responsibility for the negativity, that he or she nevertheless experiences because of the coercive DL of the other person.

 

Rest assured, in speaking to ourselves, the verbal rape, mentioned in the previous paragraph, never takes place, because to ourselves, for ourselves, with ourselves and because of ourselves – with the words we have for it, with the understanding and acceptance that we have about it and with the patience and time we have for this – we have let it be known, that we experience this, because this is the only way to express this verbally to ourselves.

 

Maybe we feel shortchanged? Maybe we are tired of always experiencing the same drama over and over again? Maybe we really don't want DL anymore from now on and because we've said and heard it so many times in all its monstrosity, unconsciousness, impetuosity, resentment, doggedness, guilelessness and unscrupulousness, we're coming to know who we are, who we were and who we will be, if only we could speak – in our own language – about what happened to us. Yes, a great deal of suffering and sorrow has befallen us and we can hear it, if we say it to ourselves. And, we can also write about this and leave it all behind us, because with our EL we surrender to our Language Enlightenment (LE).

 

Gelukzalig,

 

Ik heb vandaag een gelukzalig gevoel. Ik weet heel goed hoe deze prachtige ervaring mij is overkomen. Ik heb, merkwaardig genoeg, niet het gevoel, dat ik er iets voor heb gedaan, ofschoon het natuurlijk absoluut waar is, dat ik er alles voor heb gedaan. Hoe kan iemand zoiets nou schrijven of zeggen? Heel eenvoudig: door hardop met zichzelf te praten en daardoor naar zijn of haar eigen stem te kunnen luisteren, die hem of haar vertelt, dat zijn of haar taal echt daadwerkelijk helemaal van hem of haar is.

 

Belichaamde Taal (BT) is het toe-eigenen van onze taal voor onszelf. Het gaat hier niet om het innemen van een standpunt of het hebben van een bepaald geloof, want de vanzelfsprekendheid die we ervaren is mogelijk vanuit de ruimte, die wij met onze taal hebben gecreerd. De strijd, waarin iedereen met Ontlichaamde Taal (OT) is verwikkeld, vindt niet langer meer plaats, omdat onze taal is belichaamd en wij dus in het hier en nu kunnen blijven, terwijl we spreken, luisteren, schrijven of lezen.  

 

Ofschoon er altijd weer iets nieuws wordt gezegd, gehoord, begrepen, ontdekt, onderzocht, vereerd en gecreerd, is er geen enkele identificatie met de woorden en de zinnen, die vanzelf beschrijven wat er kan komen. Het oplossen van de taal in de ruimte die we bespreken geeft een enorme rust, die op geen enkele andere wijze tot stand kan komen.

 

Men heeft het vaak over het zogenaamde kalmeren van ons woelige denken, maar zij die BT kunnen hebben, weten dat iedereen, die op die manier over  hun taal spreekt, onbewust leeft en handelt vanuit OT. Er is eenvoudigweg geen mind voor hen, die BT hebben en het tot rust komen, in de taal die ruimte creert, werd uitsluitend en alleen mogelijk, doordat de taal, die ruimte innam, eindelijk is opgehouden.

 

BT is niet het tegenovergestelde van OT, maar wat er gebeurt als OT niet plaats vindt. Aanvankelijk, zijn we geneigd, om BT nog te beschouwen vanuit onze oude conditionering met het dualistische OT, waarin we het altijd over de ander blijven hebben, die ons ervan lijkt te weerhouden, om bij onszelf te blijven. Vanwege BT kunnen wij eindelijk alleen met onszelf bezig zijn. In OT wordt de schijn opgehouden, dat wij met elkaar – en dus niet met onszelf – praten, maar in BT is het ons helder, dat met onszelf praten het werkelijke gesprek met anderen mogelijk maakt.

 

Het met taal bereiken van de ander, ligt altijd in het verlengde van het ervaren van onszelf en alles klopt precies. In het ontbreken van de aandacht voor onze eigen ervaring echter, is er altijd een hang naar het opvullen van wat ons grootste gemis kan worden genoemd. Iedereen probeert, ongemerkt, de leegte op te vullen, die als een negatieve emotie wordt ervaren. Het erkennen en het ongestraft toelaten van die negatieve gevoelens – in taal – veroorzaakt een transformative, waardoor zelfs de meest verkrampte, fanatieke, kwaadaardige, verwarde, perverse en chaotische ervaringen betekenisvol en waardevol gaan worden. Er is zoveel dat, vanwege onze eigen OT, ongezegd is gebleven, naar onszelf.

 

Schrijven over OT en BT heeft een andere functie, dan het hardop praten met onszelf. In het luisterend spreken met onszelf komen we meteen in contact met wat er voor ons van belang is, in het moment, dat we met onszelf spreken, maar in het schrijven daarover, vindt er een redenatie proces plaats, dat ons rationeel doet worden, over hoe wij ons voelen.

 

In het schrijven over BT – aan onszelf – worden wij rationeler over onze emoties, terwijl in het spreken met onszelf over wat wij ervaren, worden we steeds emotioneler, omdat wij echt kunnen ervaren, wat we ervaren, omdat onze taal zich naar onze ervaring heeft kunnen voegen. Uiteraard heeft dit te maken met hoe wij klinken en kunnen wij dus, in het praten met onszelf, heel lelijk, onrustig, hatelijk, vervelend, paranoia, ongevoelig, oppervlakkig, platvloers, verloren en drammerig klinken. Naar onszelf willen wij het hier eigenlijk liever helemaal nooit over hebben en omdat anderen hier meestal niet naar wilden luisteren, willen wij daar ook van onszelf niet van horen. In het praten met onszelf, valt hier echter niet omheen te gaan en zeggen we, al is het met tegenzin, toch alles wat ons zogezegd dwarszit, ook al is dit nog zo tot niets leidend, verwerpelijk, waanzinnig, uitputtend, onaangenaam, belachelijk, tegen de keer in, droevig en verontrustend. Het is juist precies het uitspreken van wat ons het meest tegenstaat, dat ons uit onze OT doet stappen.

 

Er wordt vaak gesproken over de zogenaamde noodzaak, die er zou bestaan, om in het gesprek met anderen, het ongemak en de negativiteit maar te eenvoudigweg te accepteren, omdat die ander,  ons zogezegd confronteerd met de zogenaamde feiten, die wij wellicht geneigd zouden zijn, om die te ontkennen. Er is hier dus altijd duidelijk sprake van een machts-verhouding, waarin de persoon, die zogezegd mag zeggen waar het op staat, de leiding neemt en met zijn of haar OT de ander overheerst, die dat zomaar klakkeloos moet accepteren en bij zichzelf moet blijven, om zo verontwoordelijkheid te kunnen nemen, voor de negativiteit, die hij of zij evenwel ervaart vanwege de OT van die ander.

 

In het spreken met onszelf, vindt de in de vorige alinea genoemde verbale verkrachting nooit plaats, omdat wij aan onszelf, voor onszelf, met onszelf en vanwege onszelf – met de woorden, die wij daar voor hebben, met het begrip en de acceptatie, dat wij daarover hebben en met het geduld en de tijd, die wij daarvoor hebben – hebben laten weten, dat wij dit ervaren, omdat dit de enige manier is, om dit verbaal aan onszelf kenbaar te kunnen maken.  

 

Misschien voelen we ons tekort gedaan? Misschien zijn we het zat, om altijd hetzelfde drama opnieuw te ervaren? Misschien willen we vanaf nu echt geen OT meer en omdat we het al zovele malen in al z’n  onstuimigheid, verongelijktheid, verbetenheid, onbewustheid, gewetenloosheid en argeloosheid hebben gezegd en gehoord, komen we eindelijk aan de weet, wie we zijn, waren en kunnen blijven, als wij maar – in onze eigen taal – konden spreken over wat ons is overkomen. Ja, er is ons heel veel leed en verdriet overkomen en we kunnen het horen, als wij het aan onszelf zeggen. En, wij kunnen hier ook over schrijven en alles achter ons laten, omdat wij met BT ons overgeven aan onze Taal Verlichting (TV).  

 

What,

 

There is more going on than meets the eye, with the push for inclusion of non-binary people. Rather than merely being seen, people insist on being heard and in doing so, they demand from others, that they use the words and the language, they want them to use. This phenomenon isn’t anything new, as it describes the way of talking, which has been going on, ever since we became verbal. What is easily forgotten, is that, one day, we were without language, but, at some point in human history, it began to emerge.

 

Our verbal, individual lives are very short, in comparison to the evolution of human language, which is approximately 200,000 years old. It is no exaggeration to say, that our language plays a much more crucial role in our lives than our genes. Each of us is born without language and unless someone repeatedly produces an English or a Dutch sound, we don’t learn how to speak the English or Dutch language. Yet, if we speak intellectually about the origins of language, what we say takes precedent over how we say it, as we keep ignoring the great  importance of how we sound, while we speak. The old saying: it is not what you say, but how you say it, is more relevant than ever, but who is saying this? It is a courageous listener, who had the gall to become a speaker, because he or she didn’t like the sound of that pushy speaker, who dominated and, of course, prevented him or her from also being a speaker.   

 

What is often described as the main characteristic of human language, is that it is compositional, that is, it allows us, as speakers, to express ourselves in sentences, which consist of subjects, verbs and objects – such as ‘I ate my sandwich’ – while using the past, the present (‘I eat my sandwich’) or the future tense (I’m going to eat my sandwich’). What has, however, been missing completely, in all the debates about language, is that compositionality gives us the capacity to endlessly generate new sentences, as we – due to how we sound – become able or unable to combine or recombine sets of words into their subject, verb and object roles.

 

What we are able to say, to each other, but, more importantly – to ourselves – depends on whether we are feeling threatened and fearful or safe and at ease. In the former, we will engage in Disembodied Language (DL), as our autonomic nervous system is in a state of alarm. Unfortunately, most interaction is based on this fight-flight-freeze behavior, which, obviously produces a different sound, than when this biological survival system isn’t elicited. What happens is, the aforementioned compositional and generative aspects of our language are shut down. In Embodied Language (EL), by contrast, we can be socially engaged with each other – and ourselves – as the sound of our voice, produces and maintains the wellbeing, which we express and reciprocate.

 

Everyone can hear what is happening, when we, out of fear, mechanically fight, dominate, manipulate and coerce each other – but, also, ourselves – to talk in a predetermined manner. This acted speech is DL, which sounds and feels terrible and unnatural. EL, on the other hand, sounds and feels good, as we speak effortlessly and without any negative tension. What we will say, when we have stopped our DL, is something to look forward to, as it will be new.   

 

What is the word ‘woman’ supposed to mean, if we are being forcefully told, that it is more inclusive, to use ‘birthing persons’ or ‘persons with uteruses’? Should inclusion of trans and nonbinary individuals result in the exclusion of all women? What is lost in this whole nasty discussion, about what we consider to be our identity, is that – regardless of what and who we believe ourselves to be – our voice always sounds aggravated, as long as we cannot be ourselves.

 

I have worked for many years in mental health and I still feel relieved, I have left that field and teaching psychology for good. Although I may have forgotten most of the professional jargon, what I will never forget, is the energy-draining sounds of all those who suffer. Only a few terms have survived, in my vocabulary, which I still find useful in describing DL and EL. What I can suddenly remember, is the term derealization, which is the experience of feeling separated from our immediate surroundings, but, presumably – and I have always wondered how that is even possible? – without an associated change of consciousness or impaired awareness. Moreover, derealization is often mentioned in conjunction with depersonalization, which, among other things (?), can be described, as a detachment within the self, regarding one’s mind or body, or being a detached observer of oneself. Anyone who is diagnosed with depersonalization, may feel, they have changed and that the world has become vague, dreamlike, less real, lacking in significance or being outside reality while looking in. However, these are typical features of what we are all – unconsciously – experiencing every day, when we engage in our common way of talking, which is DL. Depersonalization – which, not surprisingly, is also prevalent in other dissociative disorders, including dissociative identity disorder – is described as a feeling of being on autopilot and that the person’s sense of individuality or selfhood has been hindered or suppressed. Sounds familiar? In DL, we keep getting carried away by what we say and are seemingly imprisoned our so-called mind.  

 

What nobody wants to know – not even scientists,   psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, politicians, parents or teachers – is that none of these mental health issues would ever even occur, if we were able to speak with ourselves and listen to ourselves and happily engage in EL. Body-dysphoria – which is one of the features of gender-dysphoria, and which, of course, refers to our autonomic fight-flight-freeze behavior – is felt by everyone, who engages in DL, but nobody ever talks about that. It is only when we engage in EL, that we can say what we want to say.