Language

Our English language is inadequate when it tries but fails to describe the nature of our specie. Religions and several other institutions have played a role in determining and judging what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Viewing the ‘light’ and ‘dark’ side of humanity through a critical lens, has left us partially ‘blind’. We have, through many centuries, created a mode of expression, which has left us wanting. We have accepted in ‘blind faith’ what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ behaviour and therefore, what is acceptable. We have further separated parts of ourselves by ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ descriptions. Although in reality, we are everything that ever was, is, and will be, with minimal choices determining how we behave in any given moment, why do we continue to deny the acceptance of our total being?

The paradox of us divides the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ within and without us. Because of ‘painting’ ourselves with the above descriptions, we continue to separate our behaviours according to some arbitrary rule, for external use. By not accepting ourselves wholly, and by not understanding ourselves in depth and in real terms, we continue to relate to each other so conditionally, that we never really get to know each other. Rather than perceiving ourselves as individuals and different, in any given moment, it is much easier to compare and judge.

We are constantly demanding how people should speak to us. We control the words in others when we subtly or not so subtly pressure them into using language that does not get us ‘down’. G_d forbid that we use ‘negative’ terminology to express ourselves by relating as transparently and honestly as possible. We have bought into a ‘jargon’ that is non-descriptive and confusing. We refer to ourselves as ‘double headed coins’ so as to distinguish between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in our paradoxical nature. Rather than being accepted as the complete and whole ‘metal’ of the ‘coin’, we object for fear of non-acceptance. We have created a hypocritical ‘bubble’ that is very disturbing, destructive, and abusive to and for us. So, when we venture forth with descriptions of ourselves, we are constantly being judged, as we interact. Instead, we should become much more accepting of our true and complete nature. We are all lovers, killers, compassionate, war-mongers, affectionate, haters, pro-life, pro-choice, peace-activists, soldiers, monks, warriors, counsellors, death penalty advocates, terrorists, supporters, violent, mediators, pacifists, etc., all of which can be acted out, depending upon the circumstances we are subjected too, in any given moment. However, our language precludes us from identifying and describing ourselves completely, in an understanding and accepting manner without leaving the impact of judgement and stigma. When we try to describe how we feel to someone, inevitably we are caught up in residual language. Would it not be preferred if we could say that we feel angry, jealous, depressed or fearful without the residual judgement of being an angry, jealous fearful and depressed person? Instead of separating the behaviours from the person, we label the individual, because of their behaviour.

In this ‘feel good’ society we continually force only language from others which makes us feel good. It may not be accurate nor descriptive of where we are emotionally but we use it anyway. A number of professions demand the use of ‘positive’ language, as if we are always feeling positive. Although we do not always feel positive, we continue to strive to deceive through inappropriate but coercive language. Is it possible that we have chosen the ‘path of least resistance’ and continue to place a ‘band aid on a hemorrhage’? Like a boomerang, this will come back to us; after we learn that disguising our feelings to make others` feel good is much too temporary and ‘shallow’ and negates our desired result. That result being , accurate declaration and expression of who we are in any given moment. Without this understanding, we will continue to place on ‘pedestals’ those who have artfully mastered this form of communication or lack thereof depending upon what we demand of the object person. Do we want truth or do we want to feel politically correct?

Therefore, we should all come to the understanding that we ALL have ALL behaviours within us and that they become evident (because of our emotions) from time to time and that is OK to express them when required without judgement. Alternatively, change the connotations of all the so-called ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ comparisons. If we could totally accept who we are, we would also accept ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’, ‘light’ and ‘dark’ behaviours in others, because they are within us ALL, and that is OK. How could our feelings ever be described as ‘negative’ when that is what we are feeling at the moment? So, unless we are prepared to become totally accepting of who we truly are and how we really feel, our language leaves us judging and wanting. Or, let us change, improve and expand our language, to better reflect the intention of our expressions…and so it is.