為什麼人們在寫作或說話時，對文法、字詞的正確性那麼吹毛求疵呢？是否因為語言是一種集體潛意識的隱喻，我們一出生就被納入其中，而我們的身體，就像被模具塑形一樣，必須符合既定的形體和衣著？語言就像一種異化機制，我們受它左右，它像一套恣意形塑我們的程式。我們變成語言的俘虜，語言要求我們照它的規則說話、行動，要求我們的生活與想法符合其文法、句型結構。

　　要知道，語言本來就不屬於我們。早在我們出生前，各種言談體例、我們所用的字詞、語言規則都早已存在了，是隨著歷史建立起來的。因此我們被丟進這個「語言母體」中，只能向它借用字詞來表達自己。語言預設了一種社會規範性，不是私有的，而永遠是公共的，處於和他人共享的關係之中。

　　要是我們寫作或說話時用錯了文法，就等於羞辱了自己的智力。文法就像一塊有限、既定的魔術方塊，我們操作翻轉這方塊的技巧如何，成了評判智力的標準，有時甚至害我們被奚落取笑。我們經年累月地受教育，隨著歲月，語法、文法、句型結構、詞彙、標點符號都成了一種熟悉的模式化路徑，在我們腦中形成神經元通路或演算法。我們終其一生都得照著歷史與社會先行建立的文法規則來走，要是用錯或違反了文法，都會導致我們被所屬的文化體制驅逐出境，我們身為人類的身份也會被迫吊銷，失效。似乎大多數人都認為：能正確使用文法，文筆精煉，辯才無礙，能充分掌握語言技巧的人比較「有教養」；而缺乏語言天份，表達能力差，不努力學習語言的人就相形而下。我們常根據一個人說話的文法結構正確度，來評判他的教育或「聰明」程度。

　　不管人們多麼想依語言結構和範疇來把人歸類，歷史上許多偉大的思想家，其實都無法符合這種體制規範。眾所皆知，愛因斯坦與達文西的筆記充斥著拼字、文法錯誤。思想史上最偉大的哲學家－伊曼努爾・康德竟是最差勁的作家之一。 我想也許是因為想像力豐富的人通常是右腦主導，因而他們的大腦語言功能較弱，而這正激發了視覺和創意天賦。科學家分析愛因斯坦的大腦，發現他腦中的語言模組較常人稍小，但這「缺陷」的補償機制，造成他腦中的空間-視覺元素比一般人的腦更發達(生理上分布更廣)。也可能是因為反傳統、有創意的個體壓根兒就不肯照著既定規則走，因此他們較少遵循既定結構的文法規範而行。

　　請別誤解我的意思，我並不是說我們完全被語言奴役。語言既是我們的靈魂之窗，也是我們心靈的庇蔭之門。 我們都被囚禁在黑暗洞穴中，唯一能讓我們窺視真實的窗戶，同時也是把我們鎖住的結構。但我們除了這扇窗之外沒有別的出口，我們被迫只能使用這套工具爬出洞穴，逃離這層配置，來到真實的喘息空間－那兒似乎比我們的感官所接觸到的更「真實」。在已建立的文法結構中，仍有非常廣闊的自由空間，讓我們發揮聰明才智。若無先決的架構作背景，自由就無法充分展現；若沒有發射基地台，自由意志也無法衝向天際。若不藉由句子、文法建構論述，思想也就無從宣洩。

Why are people so anal about writing/speaking with the utmost correct grammar and spelling?  Is it because that language is a metaphor for the collective consciousness that we are born into, like the way our bodies fit into pre-existing shapes and molds of clothes? Language can be analogous to an alienated organism that acts upon us like a program that shapes and molds us into its own will.  We become language’s victims, as it demands us to act and speak accordingly, and structure our lives and thoughts in accordance to its very own grammatical structures and sentences.  Language is not ours to begin with.  Discourses, words we use, and the rules that come with language are already there, established throughout history, way before we were born.  So we are thrown into this "language matrix" to merely borrow the words that we express ourselves with. Language presupposes a sort of conformity, something that is never private, but is always shared in public with others in on-going relations.

When we speak or write with the wrong grammar, our intellects are automatically insulted.  We are judged upon, sometimes even laughed at by the way we operate and toss and turn under this limited and pre-established grammatical rubric.  Overtime, throughout our years of schoolings, syntax and grammar, structural sentences, vocabularies and  punctualities punctuations become familiar routes of patterns that are laid down in our minds in the forms of neural pathways and computational algorithms.  For the rest of our lives, we are to play by the grammatical rules that are pre-established by history and society, and any misuse and transgression of grammar leads to the expulsion from the cultural systems that we were brought up in, and our status as human beings are involuntarily revoked and invalidated.  It seems to be the case that most people suppose that those who can correctly use grammar and those who are articulate, with refined writing and speaking skills and controls over language are more “cultured” than those who have lesser gifts for linguistic expressions and endeavors, and that we often judge how well educated and “smart” somebody is based on how they do with words and how they structure their sentences.

As much as we would like to categorize people based on the categorization and the structures of language, some of the greatest minds throughout history have trouble with such a rule of establishment.  Einstein and Da Vinci are known to make abundance of spelling errors and grammatical mistakes in their notebooks and writings.  Immanuel Kant, one of the greatest thinkers in intellectual history just happens to be one of its poorest writers. I think one of the reasons why this is so is that imaginative people are mostly right-brain dominated individuals, but that the lack of linguistic functionalities embedded within their brains are precisely what give rise to their visual and creative geniuses.  Analysis of Einstein’s brain reveals that the linguistic modules of his brain are slightly smaller than average, but this “defect” is overcompensated by the spatial-visual components of his brain, which are more active (wider physically) than the average brain.   It might also be the case that creative individuals and iconoclasts refuse to play by the rules to begin with, thus they are less attuned to the pre-structurally established rules of grammar. 

But don’t get me wrong…I am not saying that we are enslaved completely by language, for language is both the window to our souls and the door that shelters our minds.  We are all situated in a dark cave, and the only window that allows us to peek out into reality is the very same structure that keeps us locked in.  But we have no other means to climb out of this cave but through this window, for we can only use the same materials and tools that are imposed on us as means to escape and climb out of their very own configurations… into the recess of reality that seems more “real” to us than what our senses provide us with.  There is a lot of freedom and room for ingenuity within the pre-established structures of grammar, and just like freedom can never be manifested fully without the framework of deterministic layouts that serve as the background and the springboard for which our free will can be launched and projected, thoughts can never find their outlets without channeling through discourses of sentences and grammar.