Identity,

 

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

 

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 To be a modern individual, we can’t afford to remain identified with our outdated, ancient affiliation with some group.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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