Are We Being Con-ned Into Con-senting To Con-trol?
Is language our con-tract to con-sent?
There is the saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can-not make it drink. Nor will it let you ride it if it doesn’t wish to. No one has to listen to or follow your instructions if they do not believe what you say or agree to your opinion. Yet we all seem to agree collectively in our submission to an overall perception of reality.
The universal law seems to imply that to enforce something against something else’s will is wrong and comes with consequences for the enforcer. So how does our enforcer achieve such a collective will on such a grand scale? I suggest that within our language we con-form and con-sent to our con-trol.
Let us look at the word ‘con’. Our dictionary explanation for this word is to deceive, trick or lie. Yet it is so integrally imbedded in our language most commonly as agreement to or where necessary, deterrent from con-sidering any alternative as con-spiracy or con-tradiction. The most deceptive self-use seems to be the denial of our own essential being as ‘con-science’.
Yet through con-gress, con-sensus, con-formity and con-stitution we con-cur with our con-dition. We agree to be con-demned and con-victed and con-tained. We accept our con-flicts and con-clusions all through our con-versations. We remain con-fused and con-tinue to exist within the con-finements of this prominent con-nection.
We are con-sumed by this language that con-taminates our words and con-torts our reality. We accept our con-striction under the con-vention that we should be con-tent with this con-session. We are con-vinced by it.
Surely we need to realise the con-textual under-standing of the language in the con-tract by which we give our con-sent?