People that value their conformity do not value clarity.

I generally applaud your attempts to transcend "norms" of thought, but I suggest to you that such attempts are ultimately futile because language which (perhaps arguably*) is the vehicle for thought, is always acquired through socialization. If you read up on recent philosophers such as Rorty** or Derrida, they imply that your very terminology such as "clarity" or "eye" are aspects of Greek philosophy residual in modern Western language.

(By drawing your attention to this issue I am attempting to conform with the mission statement of A2K in providing "expertise" as a counter to your "one-liner").

References
* The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
** "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature".

This language we conform to, stunts language. How is it language?

Sorry...I don't understand that.
Explain what you mean by "stunts".

If you simply mean that there are levels of describing "thinking about thinking" then IMO in order to avoid an infinite regress you either need to move to
1."language as social behavior* (Maturana)
or
2."language deconstruction"(Derrida)

Any other implication of "stunts" would be an absolutist i.e. a quasi religious stance.

Language that cannot evolve, is not life; it's death.

Language must be connected to the Universe's design, not our desires.

So you are taking an absolutist prescriptive stance !

At the risk of being tiresome, I suggest you read up on developments of Kant's point.... that we have no direct access to "the Universe's design". Such developments imply that we actively construct concepts of such "design" for human purposes. Note, for example, that what appears to be a key word for you such as "void" has no meaning in modern physics irrespective of our lay usage of the term.

No, there is a Universe's design. Our entire human experience is influenced by that design.

Marking.

This one I gotta follow. My guess is...it will be priceless!