Characteristics,
After one
has explored one’s own Embodied Language (EL), not merely once or twice, but
multiple times – as often as possible – one becomes familiar with the
characteristics of one’s Disembodied
Language (DL) and one's EL. The same criteria show up again and again and, yet each
time one experiences something new. Only our EL can inform us about our DL.
There is nothing accidental about this, as our EL is possible, due to our awareness
of the discriminative features of both our DL and our EL.
Initially, the
various characteristics of EL strike us as intriguing, in and of themselves,
but, as time goes by, they blend into this majestic, new, robust behavioral
pattern. Certainly, the beaty, coherence, consistency and creativity of our EL
is very different from our insensitive, uncomfortable,
energy-consuming, contradictory, unnatural, effortful, chaotic DL.
The reality
of one’s Language Enlightenment (LE) is revealed, once one becomes capable of
continuing with EL. Our LE is the realization that there is absolutely no language anywhere inside
of us. There never was any text found inside of a human body. This absence of
covert speech is something, which debunks our so-called mind or our thoughts.
It takes time to counteract our previous conditioning, but it eventually begins to get through to
us, because, with our EL, we keep letting ourselves know, whatever we want to
say. We experience with certainty, in the let go of EL, there is no inner me, who
causes us to behave as we do, as we are truthful, silent, peaceful and empty.
If people
are confused, they sometimes say: I was drawing a blank. However, with EL we find, that being blank – is our LE – is our natural
state. Also, if someone is distracted, we say: he or she isn’t really there. In
this case, the person is internally stimulated. The crux of EL is, when we continue
to express, verbalize and say out loud,
in our own words, in our own way, what we believe to be thinking or experiencing, our imaginary
internal speech stops, as it never existed in the first place.
When we
engage in EL, instead of DL, it appears as if we become quiet, because of EL,
but that is not what happens. With EL, we always are quiet and there is no
process of becoming. Therefore, this reference, to becoming quiet, is still
saying something about our conditioning history with DL. With DL, we cannot
comprehend, what it is like, to be relaxed, open, receptive, because we remain
on guard and fearful. Thus, we perceive, becoming quiet, in our DL, as not
speaking, and, consequently, during EL, we still tend to say, out of our old
habit, that we have become quiet by speaking, but we are already quiet, each
time we engage in EL, as there is no inner language.
These
characteristics are observable, because they are audible, while we speak and
listen to the sound of our own voice. Our ears have been conditioned to hear
the sound of DL, which we hear every day, everywhere. We tend to filter out the
sound of our own wellbeing and, as a result, we neither produce this happy
sound, nor do we hear this sound, as produced by us. It seems as if we are deaf
for the sound of our EL, which we only produce, on occasions when we listen to
ourselves while we speak. However, there’s nothing really wrong with our ears,
our deafness is only a matter of our conditioning. We can still – without any
exercise or practice – make the sound of EL and hear this sound and be affected
again by what should be called the resonant vibration of our sanity.
Our
conflicted, violent, troubling conditioning history with DL makes us believe,
that we have thoughts, a mind, inner language, but each time we say what we
supposedly think, it disappears, and, in fact, we find out, it wasn’t even there to begin with. Each time, we say what, presumably, is on our
so-called mind, we feel relieved or free, but this is not the case, as long as we
still engage in automatic DL. During DL, our illusion of inner verbal
constructs, ideas, concepts and beliefs makes us do many horrible acts, to
justify, that we are right, and others are wrong. We don’t fight our religious and cultural wars – as we all tend to believe, with DL – about our overt language, but about our imaginary inner
language. Indeed, we are willing to die for our fantasies or we sacrifice our
individuality, to maintain our belief, that we belong to some group.
When we say,
again and again, out loud, alone, to ourselves, our troubling thoughts – and
listen to the sound of our voice – we hear a change in the sound of our voice,
when we shift from DL to EL. Instantly, there is a sigh of great relief and our
EL reveals something about us that is true, but which, previously, with DL, we
couldn’t and didn’t say. Now, as we say it, we no longer think it, as the words
we speak, were never inside of us. We say to ourselves: there aren’t any words
or sentences inside of our brains. We can hear and sense, the internal
conversation with ourselves, we believed to be having, was only an illusion,
created by DL, our usual way of talking. Mind, our crazy fantasy of inner
language, is a fiction, created and maintained by our DL, in which we are not
allowed to say what we wanted to say and what we are perfectly capable of
saying.
Our DL and
our EL can be recognized by their very distinct characteristics. Once these
have been identified, we are bound to prefer EL and abhor DL. In the beginning,
we seem to achieve our LE with our EL, but, as we continue with our EL, we
realize, we have actually always been like this. Also, with our EL, we feel, we
have always been looking for our EL, we have, unknowingly, always wanted to
have EL and only now we are having it. Our personal history is analogous with
the history of all of mankind. This gives us a profound understanding about,
what is not only our common problem – DL – but also, our common destiny: to
overcome DL and have EL.
Each human being has an autonomic system, which makes us want to achieve and maintain our homeostasis. Ideally, it
is our EL, that is, our consciously spoken words, which represent this self-and-other-regulating
process, by which we maintain stability, while adjusting to the conditions that
are optimal for survival. Surely, our DL prevents us speaking about and from
listening to our physiological experiences and from responding to what comes naturally.
Obviously, our biological need for homeostasis is only met during our EL, but never
in DL. When biological systems succeed in achieving homeostasis, life continues, but when they are unsuccessful,
disaster or death ensues.
We don’t
necessarily die, due to our stupid DL, but we certainly create nothing but
tragedies. Moreover, with our dissociative, insensitive DL, we never acquire,
what biologists call dynamic equilibrium, the stability, in which continuous
change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail. Threat is the only
uniform condition, which prevails due to our DL. Whether we admit it or not,
are willing to talk about it or not or capable of talking about it or not, all
humans share the same biological characteristics. This means, mapped onto our
language, we all don’t want to have DL and we all, unconsciously, only want EL,
as with EL, we are truly at ease and ourselves, as we can fully express
ourselves and feel totally resolved about all our experiences.
The more we
continue with our EL, the more its characteristics, but also the
characteristics of our DL become familiar to us. With ongoing EL, we express a
sense of completeness, in which we grow, learn, enjoy and keep experimenting.
There is never a stop in the flow of life, which is as much part of our
language, as of our bodily experience. This link, between our language and what
we experience in our body – while we speak – is at the core of EL. Since EL
expresses our experiences correctly, there is no need to go back and forth
between our language and our experience, because our EL expresses our
experience directly, accurately and satisfyingly. In DL, however, this is not
the case at all. At any given moment, we are either getting stuck on the
descriptions of the experiences we attempt to describe, or we are fixated on,
impaired by or paralyzed by experiences themselves, without being able to make
any sense of them verbally.
Our ability
to speak about our bodily sensations calmly and safely in EL, ties in with our
ability to express our emotions correctly and satisfyingly. As we all, in some
way, know, it is easier to talk about our experiences without emotions, than to
talk about our experiences with emotion. In EL, it is, at long last, apparent
to us, that talking about our experiences – without talking about our emotions
– isn’t really talking about our experiences. This is what we attempt to do in
DL, which, as we all, somehow know, is never successful, because,
inadvertently, this results in speaking about emotions, while neglecting our
experiences. Another weird complication is the contradiction, in DL,
supposedly, we can talk about our experiences and our emotions separately,
which, of course, is a complete lie.
During DL,
we all somehow buy into the idiotic idea, that we can talk about our emotions
and our experiences separately. The reality of our phony DL is, that we can talk
about what are, presumably, our experiences, but not about our emotions or, we
only talk about our emotions, but not about our experiences. In each case, we
remain incomplete, and we seek to compensate for our inability to express ourselves
totally.
There are some
differences within DL. Those with DL, who are more prone to expressing their feelings,
they always condemn those who are more prone to expressing their experiences.
Naturally, the opposite is just as true, as those, with DL, who are more likely
to express their experiences, always judge those who express their emotions. The
bottom-line of DL is, that the latter group dominates the former group and,
generally speaking, the expression of our emotionally devoid, presumably, objective
or scientific experience always appears to be more important, than expression
of emotions, which are the co-occurring feedback phenomena that are happening simultaneously
with our actions.
The adaptive
characteristics of our EL should not be underestimated. When someone has EL, he
or she has it, in spite of the DL, that is going on everywhere all the time and
in spite of his or her own conditioning history with DL. In DL, we are,
basically, only allowed to talk about what we do, but not about how we feel
about what we do. Of course, our neglected feelings don’t go away and always
come back to bite us. As stated, we compensate for not being able to express
our feelings and not being able to feel. The things we do, to get away from
ourselves, have adverse health effects and severely impair our ability to
relate to ourselves and each other. In our EL, by contrast, everything we have
been avoiding in DL is coming into our attention and is expressed with
acceptance and integration.
EL has
intellectual and scientific characteristics, but our DL is hopelessly anti-intellectual.
To put it bluntly, DL, our common way of talking is in denial of our human
nature. We make it seem with DL, as if the ideal way to communicate is to try to be open,
so that we accept and understand each other, but with EL, we are not trying to
be open, to accept or understand, because we are really open, we accept and we understand.
These effortless characteristics of our EL signify our LE.