History,

 

I like to address again the hilarious fact – I am so delighted to continue with this – that our Embodied Language (EL) illustrates to us and lets us hear, that we don’t have a so-called mind and our presumed thinking, is merely a matter of speaking and writing about how we are speaking. When we talk about our so-called mind, we call it our mind, because we talk about it. Each time we speak about thoughts, we speak with certain sounds about these thoughts, which we, presumably, are having, in such a way, that we keep getting carried away by what we say.

 

Only a rudimentary knowledge about biology and neuroscience is necessary, to be able to understand that, inside of our heads, inside of our brains, there are no words, sentences, concepts, ideas or beliefs. All of these only come out of our mouths, when we speak with a sound or when we write about what, supposedly, happens inside of us. Regardless of how used we all are, to be talking about, reading about, hearing about and writing about ourselves, as if we have experiences, as if there is someone inside of us, who experiences something, this doesn’t change anything about the ignored reality, that how we speak about ourselves, is stupid and problematic.

 

People are considered to have dreams, ambitions, convictions, perceptions, motivations, memories, fears and fantasies, but the only thing, which they have to account for all these verbalizations, is their language, that is, they speak, listen, write or read. These four behaviors determine our language and are also involved in how we deal with our language. However, how we speak and listen, sets the stage for how we read and write. This writing derives from my EL, but your reading of my writing, most likely, derives from your Disembodied Language (DL).

 

Since you don’t know the difference between DL and EL, you keep being involved in DL and you have no experience or understanding of ongoing EL. I would like you to read this writing, as if you already know about EL, even though, I know very well, this isn’t so. It doesn’t matter, if you, supposedly, know about EL or not, because, as I have just stated, there is no you, who knows EL or doesn’t know it. The difference between knowing and not knowing only matters in DL, but is no big deal, when you have EL.

 

You too could have written these words and could have engaged in EL, instead of your usual way of talking: DL. Reading of this text, is not your usual experience, as you read these words, without your usual sense of who you are. There is no need to pretend, as if there is an entity, you, who is reading and who is understanding this, as this identity, you have believed in, for so long, doesn’t exist. What does exist, are these words and your attention for these words – which would even be enhanced, if you would read them out loud and listen to the sound of your calm voice – which appeal to your English history of conditioning with language.

 

Your ability to read and understand this doesn’t require an imaginary, behavior-causing, inner agent, who, presumably, does the reading and does the understanding, however, there has to have been a history of using this language, for these words to make any sense to you. Moreover, leaving out the  always distorting effects of your usual reference to you, as the reader, there is only reading going on. Also, there is no understander, as there is only effortless understanding going on, as there really is nobody inside of you, who does the understanding.

 

I assume, because of my EL, you are perfectly fine, reading and understanding this text, without any need, to refer to a reader, who presumably reads or an understander, who supposedly understands. It is, of course, also possible, to listen without referring to the listener, who presumably listens; to speak, but without any sense of supposedly being the speaker, who speaks; or to write, without having to refer to yourself, as the writer, who writes. For me, there is only this writing, but there isn’t and there never was, an author, who, supposedly, decided to write this. Anyone could only write, understand or speak these words, if he or she had some history with this English language. This is why you engage in DL and not in EL. Surely, your history with DL, like any other relationship you have had, could come to an end and you could have, due to EL, in principle, a totally different relationship with your language.

 

I repeat once more, there is no you, inside of you, to have a relationship with your language, there is only your affiliation with language, which is afforded to you by your history of conditioning. Surely, there is only this language, as it is read and understood by you, yet, there is no you, who understands this, as this entity, who supposedly understands, isn’t real and is merely a figure of DL-speech. So, while it is true, that you can say, hear, read or write about, what you or what someone else does, you don’t speak it, yet it is spoken, you don’t hear it, yet it is heard, you don’t write it, yet it is written and you don’t read it, yet it is read. Stated differently, in EL, these words speak for themselves, but in DL, you pretend to speak them, hear them, write them, own them, understand them, reject them, accept them or forget them. None of this happens or has ever happened in EL and this realization is your Language Enlightenment (LE), which, of course, extends to all your other behaviors. You walk, but there is no walker inside of you, who walks and, yes, you may even chew gum, while you walk, but there is neither someone inside of you, who does the walking, nor someone, who does the chewing or someone, who, supposedly, does these two things, simultaneously.