Reinterpretation,

 

Although we can only get to our own Embodied Language (EL), by speaking out loud with ourselves and by listening to and enjoying to hear the sound of our voice and by writing about what it means, to be in touch with our own language, it is absolutely fantastic to hear the EL of others or to read their writings about it. This is, of course, because, other than those, who voluntarily explore their own EL, nobody has ever spoken or written about EL, in the way that one is bound to speak or write, when one has stopped one’s own Disembodied Language (DL).

 

Once we have determined the difference between our own DL and EL, we are faced with the enormous challenge, to reinterpret everything we and others have said or written, due to our almost permanent involvement in DL. However, we can only undertake this gigantic task, once we are able to have ongoing EL. It is truly phenomenal what language each of us is able to produce, when we have been victorious in stopping our own DL and can continue with our EL, which will reveal to us our Language Enlightenment (LE).  

 

It cannot be said or written often enough, that our LE includes all of the wisdom that has ever existed! This is what Carl Jung attempted to, but ultimately, failed to address. He spoke and wrote about the “collective unconsciousness” and “the objective psyche”, the idea that “a segment of the deepest unconscious mind” is “genetically inherited” and “not shaped by personal experience.” As anyone who has explored  their own EL would know, our LE is always grounded in our personal experience and could never have revealed itself to us, if our language wasn’t adjusted to it. 

 

In EL, we are not trying to invent new terms, to be able to describe our experiences, but we will reinterpret any existing terminology, to clarify the difference between our DL and our EL, which has existed since we became verbal and acquired language. Anyone, interested in the results of ongoing EL, in speaking and writing, would find, that the formulation of our personal experience is dramatically different in DL or in EL. Simply stated, in DL, our opinion, our belief or our judgement controls the conversation, but in EL, our verbal output transcends our usual tendency to argue, disagree, force, defend, distract or reject. Moreover, during EL, we speak or write effortlessly about our own experiences, since we are not in any way preoccupied with the listener, who is not the speaker or the reader, who is not the writer.

 

In EL, the speaker and the listener, as well as the writer and the reader are one. Stated differently, in EL, our objectivity doesn’t require the rejection of our subjective experiences. To the contrary, in EL, our objectivity embraces and celebrates our subjectivity. Obviously, the exclusion of our deepest, supposedly, unconscious experiences, is what Jung refers to as the “Collective Unconscious” (CU). Not coincidentally, everyone, in DL, unknowingly, excludes their own experiences. Jung didn’t define the CU as what people couldn’t verbally express - due to their DL, which is their common way of talking - and, thus, couldn’t be conscious about. He considered the CU as "derived from ancestral memory" which presumably, is "common to all humankind" but "distinct from the individual's unconscious."  

 

Jung saw the CU as common to all human beings. By assuming this biological origin, he hoped to ground his theory in science, but as anyone who is familiar with Jung’s work must admit, in scientific circles CU is still considered as a pseudo-scientific theory. Also, it is interesting to take note of the fact, that Freud, of whom Jung was once a student, believed that the "unconscious mind" with all its "defense mechanisms", was the product of personal experience, while Jung maintained that the unconscious was "inherited from the collective experience of all humanity".

 

From this brief overview of the difference between Jung and Freud’s notion of the unconscious, anyone can understand, it was Freud, with his “free association”, who was reasoning in the direction of EL. Someone who had been thoroughly psycho-analyzed – by laying and relaxing on the couch and by talking out loud with him or herself about whatever came to his or her attention – would have eventually listened to him or herself and naturally engaged in EL and, thus, solved the conflict between what Freud called the "pleasure principle" and the "reality principle". These two principles, of course, always go hand in hand, with the way in which anyone talks with him or herself or with others.

 

Another inevitable conclusion is, that Jung’s theory of "archetypes", which later became the foundation for "personality psychology", is definitely a much bigger stand-in-the-way to EL than Freud’s theory of the unconscious. The from Jung's archetypes extrapolated "Trait-Psychology (TP)", is based on three criteria: traits must be consistent, stable and vary from person to person. In effect, TP is always only about our personal differences. This emphasis on individual personality characteristics is more in line with DL. However, Freud insisted, that each individual experiences the struggle between "Id" and the "Superego" – which anyone with EL is able to view as the dilemma between acting according to what we want as individuals (=Id) or behaving according to what is expected from us from the group we belong to (=Superego). A person with a strong "Ego", could solve the conflict between Id and Superego, as he or she would engage in EL (rather than in DL), as only he or she knows how to step out of the conditioning history of ancient group behavior and continue with individual behavior. Thus, objectively speaking, in EL, we each create our own reality.