Looking away,

 

Nowadays we often hear the term looking away. In the most literal sense, it involves averting one's gaze or avoiding the gaze of someone else. For example: she saw him, but quickly looked away. In a figurative sense, it's about ignoring and pretending something doesn't exist. For example: the violence in the town became so intense that the major could no longer look away. Looking away can also be used to make someone feel unwelcome, to make them leave. For example: the mother with the crying child was stared down by the customers in the fancy store.

 

Looking away goes hand in hand with listening away. Although looking away is the common term to indicate, that we deny what is going on, listening away is the actual reason why we look away, because we always only talk about what we can see, but not about what we cannot see. Disembodied Language (DL), in which we as speakers do not listen to ourselves, is our unconscious, habitual way of dealing with language, which facilitates looking away, but with Embodied Language (EL), in which we listen to ourselves while we speak, we are fully aware of what we do and, thus, we face everything.

 

A student, who is not interested in the lesson does not pay attention, because he or she does not listen to what the teacher explains, but constantly looks bored out of the window or at his phone. A shy child also looks away and does not want you to talk in the way and with the tone of voice that makes him or her feel unsafe. When we are taught at school to pay attention, it means, that we are actually forced to listen to what the teacher says, but not to pay any attention to how he or she says, what he or she says.  So paying attention, staying alert or being obedient involves and requires selective listening in which we are instructed and urged not to worry about how someone sounds. So, we are taught from a very young age, to listen away so to speak.

 

If a speaker is not listened to, 

who, during a meeting, 

insists in vain that a board

 should not continue to 

look away,

but should actually 

talk about the enormous 

dissatisfaction and 

division that exists 

among the members, 

this is an example of 

listening away. Listening 

away – which rarely 

comes to our attention, 

because, due to DL, we 

only, very rarely talk 

about looking away

 – is primarily about not

 listening to ourselves, 

while we speak. Listening

 away, therefore, is not 

about the fact that others

 do not listen to us, but 

about the fact, that we do

 not listen to ourselves, 

while we talk.

 

When journalists risk their lives, to let the rest of the world know about the horrible wars in which everything is destroyed, they try to come up with images and news in the hope people cannot look away. However, their powerlessness is as moving as the injustice they report. Everyone somehow knows somewhere, that looking away and listening away is also necessary, since we have not found a solution for the indisputable fact that DL is our common use of language. DL is, in essence, a dissociative use of language, in which speakers are not in touch with themselves. Threat is the only reason DL continues, because as soon as we listen to ourselves - and can hear in the sound of our voice that we really feel safe - then our DL ends and we effortlessly have EL.

 

Both looking away and listening away concern all kinds of things we do not want to see or do not want to hear. With DL it is often said and written, very punishing, demanding and overwhelming, that we should actually look at what we do not want to see and we should listen to what we apparently do not want to hear, but with EL, we are finally going to focus on what we want to hear and what we want to see. When we are forced to face the truth with DL it always happens involuntarily, but the truth that we discover with EL, is voluntary, as it is our freedom.

 

Due to our usual, automatic DL, there is, as of yet, no attention paid to the sound of our own voice, while we speak. We listen to others, but not to ourselves. We also try, in many manipulative ways, to make others listen to us, but we do not hear ourselves and we are consequently totally carried away by our language. Our confusion about our unspoken and unheard language has inevitably led us to erroneously assume and fantasize, that language takes place within us, inside of our heads. So, because of DL, we are stuck with the illusion of an inner conversation that we are having with ourselves, but which cannot be heard, as it is supposedly, silently, covertly, representing our true thoughts and feelings.

 

When we notice the stark difference between our DL and our EL, it suddenly becomes abundantly clear to us, that all our language – and I repeat, all our language – can be said, heard, written and read and that that elusive inner language – our so-called thinking – absolutely doesn’t exist and is only a way of speaking, which was maintained by our DL. In other words, in EL the listening away stops, as we really hear ourselves for the first very time. This is always accompanied by a sudden, pleasant, noticeable energy flow, which shows, we have started to use our language in a completely different way. Because we no longer listen away with DL, we are immediately aware of our Language Enlightenment (LE) with our EL. Once this has happened, it will be impossible to look away or listen away from our LE. They say, with DL, seeing is believing, but with EL, there is nothing to believe or to see, because we can hear, experience and know what we say. With EL, we listen to ourselves, and it is clear that we do this because of our LE.

 

Wegkijken,

 

We horen tegenwoordig vaak de term wegkijken. Het betreft in de meest letterlijke zin, het afwenden van de blik of de blik van iemand anders vermijden. Bijvoorbeeld: zij zag hem, maar keek vlug weg. In figuurlijke zin, gaat het om het negeren en het doen alsof iets niet bestaat. Bijvoorbeeld: het geweld in de regio werd zo hevig, dat de wereld niet meer kon wegkijken. Ook kan wegkijken worden gebruikt, om iemand onwelkom te laten voelen en om dus zo te kijken, dat ze weggaan. Bijvoorbeeld: de moeder met huilend kind werd weggekeken in de winkel.

 

Uiteraard gaat wegkijken samen met wegluisteren. Ofschoon wegkijken de gangbare term is, om aan te geven, dat we ontkennen wat er aan de hand is, is wegluisteren de eigenlijke reden, dat we wegkijken, omdat we altijd slechts spreken, over wat we kunnen zien, maar niet over wat we niet kunnen zien. Ontlichaamde Taal (OT), waarin wij als sprekers niet naar onszelf luisteren, is onze onbewuste, gebruikelijke omgang met taal, die het wegkijken faciliteert, maar met Belichaamde Taal (BT), waarin wij luisterend spreken, zijn wij ons volledig bewust van wat wij doen en zien wij alles onder ogen.

 

Een student, die niet geinteresseerd is in de les, die let niet op, want hij of zij luistert niet naar wat de leraar uitlegt, maar kijkt voortdurend verveeld weg uit het raam of naar zijn telefoon. Ook een verlegen kind kijkt weg en wil niet dat je praat op de manier en met het stemgeluid, die hem of haar een onveilig doet voelen. Als ons op school wordt geleerd, dat wij moeten opletten, dan wordt daarmee bedoeld, dat wij eigenlijk worden gedwongen, om te luisteren naar wat de meester zegt, maar om dus geen enkele  aandacht te geven, aan hoe hij of zij zegt, wat hij of zij zegt. Opletten, bij de les blijven en gehoorzaam zijn, houdt dus een selektief luisteren in, waarin ons wordt opgedragen, dat wij ons niet zouden moeten bekommeren, over hoe iemand klinkt. Wegluisteren wordt ons dus zogezegd met de paplepel ingegeven.

 

Wanneer er niet wordt geluisterd naar een spreker, die, gedurende een vergadering, er tevergeefs op aandringt, dat een bestuur niet zou moeten blijven wegkijken, maar juist zou moeten praten, over de enorme onvrede en de verdeeldheid, die er heerst onder de leden, dan is er sprake van wegluisteren. Wegluisteren – wat zelden onder de aandacht komt, omdat wij, vanwege onze OT, het uitsluitend, heel af en toe eens over wegkijken hebben –  gaat echter in de eerste plaats, over het niet luisteren naar onszelf, terwijl wij spreken. Wegluisteren gaat dus niet om het feit, dat anderen niet naar ons luisteren, maar om dat wij niet naar onszelf luisteren, als wij praten.    

 

Wanneer journalisten hun leven in de waagschaal leggen, om de rest van de wereld te laten weten over de afgrijzelijke oorlogen, waarin alles wordt verwoest, proberen zij met beelden te komen, in de hoop, dat men daar niet van weg kan kijken. Hun machteloosheid is echter net zo aangrijpend, als het onrecht waarover zij berichten. Iedereen weet ergens wel, dat wegkijken en wegluisteren nodig is, omdat wij geen oplossing hebben gevonden voor het onomstotelijke feit, dat OT onze voertaal is. OT is, in essentie, een dissociatief taalgebruik, waarin sprekers niet in contact zijn met zichzelf. Bedreiging is de enige reden, dat onze OT voortduurt, want zodra wij, luisteren naar onszelf – en kunnen horen in de klank van onze stem, dat wij ons veilig voelen – dan houdt onze OT op en dan hebben wij BT.   

 

Zowel ons wegkijken als ons wegluisteren betreft allerlei zaken, die wij niet willen zien of niet willen horen. Met OT wordt er voortdurend, heel straffend,  dwingend en overweldigend, gezegd en geschreven, dat wij toch eigenlijk zouden moeten kijken, naar wat wij niet willen zien en toch eens zouden moeten gaan luisteren, naar wat wij klaarblijkelijk niet willen horen, maar met BT, gaan wij ons eindelijk bezig houden met wat wij willen horen en willen zien. Het met OT onder ogen moeten zien van de waarheid, gebeurd altijd op basis van onvrijwilligheid, maar de waarheid, die wij ontdekken met BT is onze vrijheid.  

 

Er is vanwege onze gebruikelijke, automatische OT vooralsnog geen enkele aandacht, voor de klank van onze eigen stem terwijl wij spreken. Wij luisteren naar anderen, maar niet naar onszelf. Ook trachten wij, op allerlei manipulatieve manieren, om anderen naar ons te doen luisteren, maar wij horen onszelf niet en wij zijn daardoor verdwaald in de taal. Onze  verwarring over onze onuitgeproken en ongehoorde taal, heeft onvermijdelijk tot gevolg gehad, dat wij foutievelijk veronderstellen en fantaseren, dat er taal binnenin ons, in ons hoofd, zou plaats vinden. Wij zitten dus, vanwege OT, allemaal opgescheept met de illusie van een innerlijk gesprek, dat wij met onszelf zouden hebben, maar wat niet gehoord kan worden, omdat het zogezegd, stilletjes, onze ware gedachtes en gevoelens zou vertegenwoordigen.  

 

Wanneer wij het grote verschil opmerken tussen onze OT en onze BT, dan blijkt ineens, overduidelijk, dat al onze taal – en, ik herhaal, al onze taal – kan worden gezegd, gehoord, geschreven en gelezen en dat die ongrijpbare innerlijke taal – ons zogenaamde denken – absoluut niet bestaat en slechts een wijze van spreken is, die door OT in stand werd gehouden. Met andere woorden, in BT houdt het wegluisteren op en horen wij voor het eerst echt onszelf. Dit gaat altijd samen met een zeer plotselinge, aangename,  waarneembare energie stroom, die aantoont, dat wij onze taal op een totaal andere manier zijn gaan gebruiken. Omdat wij niet meer wegluisteren met OT, zijn wij ons, met onze BT, direct bewust van onze Taal Verlichting (TV). Als dit eenmaal is gebeurd, valt er niet meer weg te kijken van onze TV. Men zegt, met OT, eerst zien, dan geloven, maar met BT valt er niets te geloven, omdat wij horen, ervaren en weten wat wij zeggen. Met BT luisteren wij naar onszelf en is het duidelijk, dat wij dit doen vanwege onze TV.        

 

Macho,

 

There is a lot of nonsensical talk about gender going on these days. In this writing, I will address the word macho from two different perspectives, on how we deal with our language. When we consider macho from our common –  but wrong – understanding, we must acknowledge, that our faulty perception, is created and maintained by automatic Disembodied Language (DL), but if we would stop our DL, so we would finally be able to have Embodied Language (EL), we would immediately understand, there is nothing negative about being macho and there is, actually, a need for more and not less, machismo.  

 

DL is based on posturing, intimidation, coercion and violence, but EL is rooted in genuineness, liveliness,  openness and truthfulness. The word macho or tough guy comes from Spanish, male animal, a noun use of the adjective meaning masculine or virile. Macho derives from Latin, masculinus, masculine gender and from masculus, which means male. The English version, masculine, means, worthy of a man and – people, who believe in transgenderism, try to prohibit us from saying this – having the appropriate qualities of the male sex, being powerful, virile and manly. In Western culture, Machismo or masculine pride is no longer allowed, but gay pride is praised.

 

The famous song Macho Man, by the Village People, is of interest for my analysis. In this song, six gay men sing about their professed love of their body, but they definitely don’t sing about embodying their language. I would say, that being gay is actually just another failed attempt at addressing DL. Many gay men either try to sound feminine or they hilariously attempt, as they do in this song, try to be a Macho.  

 

Here is the first part of Macho Man:

Body, wanna feel my body,
Body, baby, such a thrill, my body
Body, wanna touch my body,
Body, baby, it's too much, my body
Body, check it out, my body, body,
Baby, don't you doubt, my body
Body, talking about my body, body,
Baby, checking out my body

 

It is really remarkable how often the word body is used in this song. Please look up the lyrics yourself and pay special attention, to how in our usual way of talking, we don’t embody our language. That is why DL is everywhere. Of course, many people don’t feel happy with their DL. However, as long as they haven’t addressed their DL appropriately, it will not stop, and they remain incapable of having EL. Also, transgender people have many issues with their body. They believe to be a woman in a man’s body or a man in a woman’s body, but they never address their DL, which creates and maintains their body dysphoria, the term, which is used to describe the emotional distress, that is – said to be – caused by a mismatch between one’s body and one’s identity.

 

This writing is not about what the reader usually associates with the word macho – because macho, as it is understood with DL, is merely about image – but it is – with EL – about our survival and survival is about living and being alive. Stated differently, in DL, men act macho, but they are phony. Real men, who have EL, don’t need to pretend, as if they are manly, as they are full of life, strength and energy. It is only the uncomfortable men, who have to prove what a macho they are. They are uncomfortable, because they, unconsciously, day in day out, engage in DL.  

 

Ultimately, we are endlessly competing and trying to outdo each other, by pretending to be stronger, smarter, better, holier and safer than others. While with DL, all men are trying – in vain – to be an alpha male, the undeniable, biological fact remains, there are only a few dominant males. In other words, due to our DL, most individual men, have never really been the man, they truly were, and, also, the vast majority of individual women, have never really been able to be the woman, they were, as there was always some kind of struggle going on, between those, who were more and those who were less powerful. Yes, there are alpha males among men and women, and this is more a matter of nature (genetics) than nurture (learning). The multidimensionality of masculinity as well as femininity can only be expressed by our EL.

 

With our ongoing EL, which expresses our Language Enlightenment (LE), the word macho – which can be applied to men as well as women – takes on a new meaning. We are inspirational and at the top of the social hierarchy, because we have acquired genuine self-knowledge, which stands in stark contrast to the superficiality, foolishness and utter meaninglessness purported by those, who unknowingly engage in DL. Moreover, our powerful, unique, fortunate position, isn’t necessarily because others have recognized us for who we are, but because we have - with our own language - recognized ourselves for who we are.

 

The machismo of those very few people – who dare to speak about and assert their LE with their EL – definitely illustrates a superior sense of willpower and independence, because they are able to stick to their own language, in spite of the irrefutable fact, that everyone engages in DL. They only want to be around people, who know what they want and they  rather remain alone, if they can’t find them. While they care for others, they care mostly about those who, with EL, know how to care about themselves.

 

Macho men, with their male machismo, have much to answer for, because DL has never been correctly addressed. Experience has taught me, that women are much more open to having EL than men. The relationship between patriarchy and machismo is, of course, maintained by our DL. Patriarchy, the system of subordination of women to men, has been going on forever. There is no evidence, there ever really was a matriarchal society. With DL, machismo is said to be a set of beliefs, cognitive biases and attitudes that predispose people to act as if women have less value than men, while patriarchy – with DL – is defined as the social phenomenon that historically has been the engine of machismo and certain privileges that only man enjoys. Certainly, it was always our way of talking, which has determined how we dealt with our language, with each other and with all our other behavior. Only our ongoing EL can set the record straight.

 

As I have stated – with EL – we need more, not less machismo, as this will not only result in becoming conscious about our LE, but it will also pave the way for happy, healthy, stimulating relationships. To put it squarely, with DL all of our so-called relationships suck. With EL, we protect and care for each other, but with DL, we have always backed out of true and authentic relationship, including our relationship with ourselves. No matter how much we manage to impress others – who are tricked by manipulations of our external appearances, particularly, by the way in which people use their voice while they speak – all the world’s DL- machos, regardless of their dumb bravado or their paranoid dominance, are eternally dissatisfied with themselves, because they cannot be content with themselves with unconscious DL.

 

It takes great courage, to acknowledge your own LE with your EL and to honor your self-nature, by being the master of your own language. Your worthiness is the result of the positive outcomes of your actions. When you do something, you do it totally and that is why you succeed. You don’t do what you do, to be admired, but to be satisfied and to be enough to yourself. With EL, you are macho about your LE, which is to say, you insist, everyone can have what you have and your life will be the example of that. With DL-machismo, you have been denying all your emotions, as if they aren’t real, valid or worthy of being expressed, but as an EL-macho, you are able to talk about your feelings and acknowledge that your stress, depression and aggression no longer occur, because you feel peaceful and fulfilled.           

 

Wachten,

 

De enige manier waarop je in staat zult zijn om voortdurend Belichaamde Taal (BT) te hebben, in plaats van Ontlichaamde Taal (OT), is door te wachten tot het vanzelf gebeurt. Ik weet het, dat je dat geduld niet hebt, maar als je BT wilt, dan zul je je ongeduld onder controle moeten houden, want je ongeduld is een basis kenmerk is van je OT.

 

Als je rust, ontspanning en stilte wilt ervaren, is het nodig om te wachten, maar dit wachten moet wel  gepaard gaan met taal, die deze sereniteit, balans en vrede beschrijft. De reden dat je deze kwaliteiten, voor een gelukkig en tevreden leven, niet zo vaak ervaart, is omdat je taalgebruik ze niet omvat, omdat je er nooit met jezelf over praat en daarom gebeuren ze niet, omdat ze niet kunnen gebeuren.

 

Als je eenmaal door hebt dat je BT kunt hebben in plaats van OT, dan kun je nauwelijks wachten tot het plezier begint. In mijn geval waren het echter deze positieve rusteloosheid en ontevredenheid, die ervoor zorgden, dat ik zo gefrustreerd raakte, over het praten met anderen, dat ik eindelijk het hardop praten met mezelf praten en luisteren naar mezelf serieuzer begon te nemen. Het bleek, dat ik in mijn eentje heel gemakkelijk kon wachten, omdat mijn BT eigenlijk altijd onmiddellijk plaatsvond.

 

Je kunt geen moment wachten, omdat je OT niet toestaat dat je het wat langzamer doet met je taal. Als je dit eenmaal tegen jezelf zegt en het jezelf laat weten, dan wordt je kalm met je BT. Het gebeurt moeiteloos en je weet, wat ik zeg over je taalgebruik is waar: tenzij je hardop met jezelf praat, zodat je aandachtig kunt luisteren naar het geluid van je eigen stem geluid, voel je het verschil niet tussen je OT en je BT en blijf je dus bezig met je automatische OT, zonder het zelfs maar in de gaten te hebben.

 

Lang geleden zag ik het toneelstuk 

Wachten op Godot van de

 beroemde Ierse toneelschrijver 

Samuel Beckett. In deze

 tragikomedie, die werd 

beschouwd als het belangrijkste

 Engelstalige toneelstuk van 

de 20e eeuw, voeren twee

 personages een verscheidenheid

 aan discussies en ontmoetingen, 

terwijl ze op een zekere Godot

 wachten. Het wachten lijkt 

echter nogal lang te duren 

en ze weten niet eens of ze 

Godot ooit hebben ontmoet 

en of hij eigenlijk wel zal 

komen. Twee andere 

getroebleerde figuren 

komen ook even in beeld, 

maar voegen geen enkele 

betekenis toe. Hun vertrek

 laat die eerste twee kerels

 verbijsterd achter, om weer

 verder te wachten op die 

afwezige onbekende Godot. 

Uiteindelijk komt er een

 jochie aan die hen vertelt, 

dat hij een boodschapper 

van Godot is, die niet vanavond zal

 arriveren, maar zeker morgen. Ze

 vragen van alles over Godot, wie hij is, 

wat hij doet, hoe hij eruit ziet en waarom 

hij op zich laat wachten, maar de 

jongen heeft slechts een paar vage 

antwoorden en vertrekt al snel.

 

De twee mannen praten over de mogelijkheid om te vertrekken, maar besluiten toch te blijven en het wachten gaat door. Omdat het stuk zo elementair en simpel is, nodigt het uit tot allerlei sociale, politieke, filosofische en religieuze interpretaties. Niettemin schuilt er zo’n zinloosheid in alle vragen die worden gesteld en de antwoorden die worden gegeven. Het is beslist hun OT – hun zogenaamde conversatie – die de nutteloosheid van het bestaan ​​van de mens aangeeft, wanneer de verlossing wordt verwacht van een externe entiteit, die ons, welbeschouwd, de zelf-introspectie ontzegd. Hun wachten kon niet resulteren in BT, omdat hun OT nooit goed werd verwoord en besproken. Met andere woorden: hoewel het een vrij goede benadering was, was het stuk slechts de zoveelste mislukte poging – in de trieste en lange traditie van mislukkingen – om OT, onze gebruikelijke, erbarmelijke, dwaze manier om met taal om te gaan, te identificeren en te stoppen.

 

Misschien moet ik BT, de taal van het wachten gaan noemen? Als je durft te wachten, dat wil zeggen: als je de moed hebt om te wachten, dan zal het wachten paradoxaal genoeg slechts heel kort zijn, ook al duurt het – zoals in mijn geval – vijfenzestig jaar om het door te krijgen. BT is het wachten waard, en het is nooit te laat, om te wachten, dus waarom probeer je het niet gewoon en wacht je eens af, om te horen of het gebeurd? Er ligt in jou BT zoveel goedheid op je te wachten. Als je eenmaal grondig je wachten hebt beschreven, dan zal je BT door blijven gaan en je zult ook ineens merken dat Godot is gearriveerd, omdat je je Taal Verlichting (TV) hebt gerealizeerd.

 

Wait,

 

The only way, in which you are going to be able to have ongoing Embodied Language (EL), instead of Disembodied Language (DL), is if you wait for it to happen. I know, you don’t have the patience, but if you want EL, you have to control your impatience, which, of course, is a basic characteristic of your DL.

 

If you want to experience peacefulness, relaxation and silence, there is a need to wait, but this waiting, must be accompanied by language, which describes this serenity, rest and stillness. The reason you don’t experience these essential qualities very often, is because your language doesn’t include them, you never talk with yourself about them, consequently, they don’t happen, because they can’t happen.

 

Once you have figured out, you can have EL instead of DL, you can hardly wait for the fun to happen. It was, in my case, however, this positive restlessness and dissatisfaction, which led me to be so frustrated about talking with others, that I finally began to take talking out loud with myself and listening to myself more seriously. As it turned out, on my own, it was very easy for me to wait, as my EL immediately occurred.

 

You can’t wait a moment, because your DL doesn’t allow you to slow down. Once you tell yourself and,  let yourself know, you can only become calm with EL, it happens effortlessly and you will know, what I say about your use of language is true: unless you talk out loud with yourself, so you can attentively listen to the sound of your own voice, you can’t feel the difference between your DL and your EL and you  continue to engage in DL without even realizing it.  

 

A long time ago, I saw Waiting For Godot, a play by the famous Irish playwright Samuel Beckett. In this tragicomedy, which was considered to be the most significant English-language play of the 20^th century, two characters engage in a variety of discussions and encounters, while waiting for Godot. It appears to be a long wait and they aren’t even sure if they have ever met Godot or whether he will ever arrive. Two other troubled men briefly join the scene, but don’t add any meaning. Their departure leaves the first two fellows bewildered, to continue their wait for the absent Godot. Eventually, some kid arrives, who tells them, he is a messenger of Godot, who will not be arriving tonight, but surely tomorrow. They ask the boy about Godot, what he does, what he looks like and what is holding him up, but the boy only has some vague answers and soon leaves.

 

The two men talk about the possibility of leaving but decide to stick around and their wait continues.  Because the play is so stripped down, so elemental, it invites all kinds of social, political, philosophical and religious interpretation. Nonetheless, there is such senselessness in this questioning and guessing. Surely, it is their DL, their so-called conversation, which signifies the futility of man’s existence, when salvation is expected from some external entity and the self is denied introspection. Their waiting couldn’t result in EL, as DL was never properly addressed. In other words, although it was a good approximation, the play was merely another failed attempt – in the sad and long tradition of failures – to identify DL, our common foolish way of dealing with language.

 

Perhaps, I should call EL the language of waiting? If you dare to wait, that is, if you have the courage to wait, paradoxically, the wait will be very short, even if it takes – as in my case – sixty-five years to get it. It is worth the wait, and it is never too late, to wait, so why don’t you just try it and wait and see? There is so much goodness, that lies in wait for you. Once you describe your waiting, you will not only allow your EL to continue, but you find Godot has arrived, as you attain your Language Enlightenment (LE).         

 

Small-talk,

 

I am not very good at small-talk, because I am into Embodied Language (EL), which is considered by everyone with Disembodied Language (DL), as a complicated or deep conversation. To me, EL isn’t unusual or profound, but it is something simple and necessary. However, most people don’t know about the difference between DL and EL and that is why they engage, unconsciously, in DL. They would feel uncomfortable, not knowing what to say and try to make themselves and each other feel comfortable by having chit-chat. In EL, it is okay not knowing what to say. Moreover, it is actually very pleasant, to just allow our EL to happen and to not talk the usual superficial, meaningless, mechanical, impersonal stuff, which people express, who fear being silent.  

 

Once you know the difference between DL and EL, you always want EL and never DL. With EL, in terms of what people call small-talk – which, by the way, never results into EL – you always prefer so-called big-talk over small-talk. As a matter of fact, you will abhor the phony, forceful, ultimately-not-so-friendly-at-all, seemingly-casual conversation, which people use to grease the wheel. Moreover, with EL, you recognize how tiring, disgusting and frustrating it is, that the squeaky wheel always gets the oil. In other words, the most noticeable, loudest problems, are the ones most likely to get the attention. Conversely, our EL is overlooked and ignored, or, rather, not listened to, because during EL, the speakers don’t demand and dominate the listener’s attention, as they do in DL.

 

We talk different languages, but we speak about similar things. In Japan, they would say, the stick that sticks up gets hammered down or the nail that stands out gets pounded down. In Holland, they say, tall trees catch a lot of wind or weed that is growing above the mowing line gets cut off. In China, they say, the crying baby gets the milk and in Korea, they say, the pointy stone meets the chisel. Certainly, the squeaky-wheel-fallacy refers to our common DL and has prevented us, thus far, from recognizing the big problem of not being able to have genuine conversation or EL. Small-talk wastes our time and energy, as it judges our EL as problematic and continues our dumb DL.

 

DL is the reason that people only want to talk about meaningless bullshit and don’t even appreciate the experience of peacefulness. These noisy, distracting universal topics, which are, supposedly, good conversation starters, are, as we all know, the weather, the current news, sports or entertainment. And, of course, you can match your blabber-mouth-topic, to the important interests of the blabber-mouth-people, to have even more blabber-mount-DL, but once you know about the difference between DL and EL, you will not be as likely to engage in this stupid charade anymore.

 

I remember when I came to the United Stated for the first time. I really had to get used to the idea of how people interact. When people ask, how are you, they don’t want to know, but you just have to say, I’m fine, thank you, how are you, as that was just a way of greeting each other and getting on with things. It just so happens, that my name is Maximus, but each time I am introducing myself, people immediately say, you go by Max? Maximus happens to mean, the biggest and I don’t like it that people abbreviate my name like that, right from the start, but just like their so-called greeting, it refers to the strong tendency of people to continue with their pushy DL and to, by all means, not have any room for anything new. Beside the fact that DL is shallow, insincere, posturing and trivial, it is also repetitive, commanding, intrusive and careless.

 

Small-talk is often about asking, how someone’s day was, so that you – if you somehow manage to keep that elusive balance between talking and listening – can get to talk about your day. After all, your version of informal discourse, is always more important than someone else, supposedly, inconsequential, but equally attention-demanding topics. Even while having small-talk, the struggle for attention goes on and that is why DL never comes to an end. To have small-talk, it is pertinent, to create the impression and to maintain the illusion, really, that what you say is not about you. Don’t get personal, but lower the bar, by offering nice words of encouragement. Glad that it’s Friday, any plans for the weekend?

 

In the work-place, always make sure, you are at your best small-talk performance. Be even less personal than anywhere else and try to talk as much as you can about your boring, uninteresting, frustrating work environment, but, of course, always without any gossiping. Make sure, while having small-talk, to never lose track of your place in the hierarchy and be extra polite and subservient. Always show your admiration and respect to your superiors, who, as you may be surprised to notice, love to get their big egos stroked by your self-deprecating small-talk. What a busy day, this is the first time, I got up from my seat, I see you have been very busy too?

 

Small-talk is about stuff everyone can talk about. I like your shoes, it’s so important to have supportive shoes. You can also talk about the place where you are, so the other person always knows what you are talking about. Glad they fixed the heather again, it was so cold in here. Compliments are almost always welcome, as long as you don’t become too much of a slimy ass-kisser. Common interests are the holy grail of small-talk. Make sure to slightly put yourself down, so you make the other person feel good. I tried baking cookies like yours last night, but they came out terrible. How do you make them so good?  

 

Make a comment and then ask questions. I heard you were talking about the animal shelter, did you get yourself a dog? Small-talk may make you seem friendlier, as you want others to perceive you that way and you depend – for your self-esteem – on how others view you and treat you. Of course, this is all part and parcel of how we engage in DL. As in DL, in small-talk, we want remain busy with each other, because it helps us avoid being busy with ourselves. The embarrassment of having to admit to ourselves, our DL isn’t working for us, but against us, is pushed away by our small-talk. Supposedly, we are friendly, we mean well, we fit in, we are confident, but the reality is, our small-talk perpetuates all our big lies.     

 

Start,

 

Let’s start with a new way of dealing language. If you would be curious and courageous enough, to investigate the difference between Disembodied Language (DL) and Embodied Language (EL), you would find, the start of your EL is always a big relief.

 

With EL, you always make a fresh start, but with DL, you start acting, as if you already know, while you haven’t even started, to explore, what it is like, to have EL. And, don’t start acting, as if DL and EL was all my idea and say to yourself these two exist.  

 

EL is not about me – or anyone else – telling you what to do, but about being serious with yourself, perhaps, saying: I don’t want you to start feeling neglected anymore, as I have always done with my DL. With EL, you will start taking care of yourself.  

 

Once you switch from DL to EL, you will start feeling more comfortable about your language, because it is adjusted to your experience, instead of taking you away from it. Yes, with EL, you start to hear and find connections, you didn’t even know existed with DL.

 

Of course, I want you to start instructing yourself, to be in charge of your life. It makes me happy, to hear you say, you are at the start of something new, as our Language Enlightenment (LE) becomes clear in that way. Let me know, when you are ready to start.

 

The question, where to start, has a simple answer. You start by giving attention, to what is asking your attention and you listen to the sound of your voice, while you let your attention jump, from something you see, to something you hear, feel or remember.  

 

Discovering the great difference between your DL and your EL is one thing, but when you start to have ongoing EL, you will realize your LE. This is the most beautiful thing you have ever experienced and you are saying it, hearing it, writing it and reading it.

 

Naturally, the continuation of your EL, as well as the continuation of my own EL, is enhanced, if we start forwarding our individual explorations with each other, by speaking with each other, about what it is like to have EL by ourselves and by writing about it.

 

In EL, we aren’t waiting for someone, to start the conversation, as speakers recognize themselves in other speakers and listeners recognize themselves in other listeners. Speakers start to become listeners and listeners start to become one with the speakers.

 

When we start to feel that irrefutable, marvelous, energizing sense of oneness, with our ongoing EL, we know, we are talking about our LE. Although the boundaries between the speaker and the listener dissolve, this is when we start to be truly ourselves.

 

When you start hearing your own LE and the LE of me and others, you will feel motivated, to continue with your EL, even though everyone keeps engaging in DL. Unless you start to keep your own EL going, you don’t hear your LE and remain busy with others.

 

You start to notice, each time you are busy with others, you are again busy with DL. This is because we are conditioned to listen to others, but not to ourselves. Thus, when you speak with and listen to yourself, you start to come out of your conditioning.

 

Each of us, instantly, knows from the start, that our EL will bring us good results, as there are immediate effects, which accumulatively predict our LE future of happiness, understanding, comfort, satisfaction and beauty. You start to experience the future now.   

 

I write this blog, to start a conversation, about the difference between DL and EL, about what happens when we have ongoing EL and we recognize our LE. This writing can be the start of a new way of life for you and I hope you will try out what I say. Start now.

 

While I already know about ongoing EL and my LE, I start with it, just like you, anew. It is so miraculous and I am so delighted. Yet, I don’t start telling any fairy tales about EL or LE, as it is not a product to be sold or bought. Your DL was doomed from the start.

 

To have EL, you must start by noticing and stopping your DL. While DL is still everywhere, it is clear, the genie of individualism is already out of the bottle. We witness in all Western societies the rapid decline of group-behavior, which was maintained by our DL.

 

Collapse of the free world can only be prevented, if we start to acknowledge our need for the language of individualism, which is, of course, our EL. When we start having EL, there is no end to it. Start with it today and be guided by your LE instead of your DL.

 

DL has always prevented us from being who we are, as it is in favor of sacrificing our individualism on the altar of the group. This is the untenable situation of all Western civilizations and only if we start to have EL, can we accept and deal with this troublesome fact.