I do not have it (!)

It is Wikipedia psychological concept of “internal communication” that I do not have. Let me quote on the thing, reckon if it is good, and then I tell what I have.

Wikipedia: Examples of internal communication are thinking to oneself I’ll do better next time after having made a mistake or having an imaginary conversation with one’s boss because one intends to leave work early.

I wouldn’t be missing out on much: if you have an entire “internal agency” for talk about mistakes, you might start making them just to keep up; and why imagine you’re the boss when you’re not?
■Agency (Wiktionary): The capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. — Lovely!

Wikipedia: Internal communication may be prompted internally or occur as a response to changes in the environment. The term “autocommunication” is sometimes used as a synonym.

No, thank you: “prompted” and “auto”, the olden Greek ■autos to say you do a thing yourself if you like would be lost.

Wikipedia: Internal communication central type happens purely internally as an exchange within one’s mind. (Other types) are mediated through external means, like when writing a diary or a shopping list for oneself.

I’d rather not have it: to think CNS and periphery, pen and paper are not mediators, they’re stationery. And things are well this way.

Wikipedia: For inner dialogue, several voices linked to different positions take turns in a form of imaginary interaction.

No, thank you: I associate “inner dialogue” for a good joke, because dialogues are always between two or more people. If one really likes, one can ■transcreate, or consider stands with ■more Shakespeare. And things are good this way.

Wikipedia: Many internal communication models hold that it starts with the perception and interpretation of internal and external stimuli or cues. Later steps involve the symbolic encoding of a message.

Decisively not: it’s like an entire procedure, to have the perception, the interpretation, and the encoding, more, originated from outside the self. There is no clue in the text what those definite ways would be, so for sales talk, it’s “one or two, three cats in a bag”. I’m not buying.

Wikipedia: Some models identify the same self as sender and receiver; others as an exchange between different parts of the self or between different selves belonging to the same person.

Definitely uninterested: I am one and own self, and life has happened to be beautiful.

Wikipedia: Positive and negative feedback received from other people affects how a person talks to themself.

No, no, no, I’m not going to have it. The legend of the Grail needn’t deviate into a myth of “ruminant chalices”. Forget about it: feedback is only what you solicit; if you don’t like it, wouldn’t it be ■common sense to stop turning for it? Nobody’s perfect, anyway.

Wikipedia: Intrapersonal communication is involved in interpreting messages received from others; an alternative is to hold that intrapersonal communication is an internalized version of interpersonal communication.

Neither, nor — and absolutely certainly. When I listen to someone talking, I do not talk to myself in thought, as well as I do not absorb people. I remember the name Adler best for a typewriter, though a bit outdated now. And things are well this way.

Another source says it is ■aphantasia, if you do not talk to yourself in your thought. They add, it is in the back of your head to have it.

This relatively rare condition is defined as the inability for a person to create visualisations in this mind and is sometimes referred to as “blindness of the mind’s eye.” ■Health Match, The voice in the back of your head.

I am absolutely not into it. My brain has my visual cortex those areas, the type of cytostructure does not produce sound, and things are well this way. All the rest is ■work on graphic design, for a grammar different from the black or white prescription enough, or a ■translation series.

Now I tell more on what I have. It is inner language; has spoken and written forms, but it does not talk, especially on its own, as it began with my inventing literally silent forms as here. My intention was to have silent forms; probably there’s still no way legally to read such.

The combination from ■Brückner, ■Koncewicz, a glossary, and a few more such books helped me develop a way to handle various languages silently, in my head, and without distortion in spoken form.

I understand, languages were of my interest, so my brain found such a silent way, because you can’t expect of it to do thinking processes in various auditory and visual forms at the same time, or not to do any thinking processes at all when you’re not speaking or writing. There was a decent language exposure in the environment, initially mostly in the media.

For language activity, I function on language trace forms. As known also from reports by other people, these are probably the best, but not even one word entire gets actually “spoken” or visualized in the head, and probably the best way to the trace is through conscious focus. I have written an exercise, everyone can try, I have done it myself. It belongs with the beginning of my grammar book: ■1.2. Mind practice.

However I might have looked a prospective “little herb” (ziółko, in Polish) right in my early written forms, the word “internal” comes too close with medical sciences, for me to have “internal language”. Therefore, I have inner language — not “internal speech” — and no, thank you, I wouldn’t change.