January 17, 2014

January 17, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

Today's letter-type euphemia was chosen to see how it effects this author’s writing. Euphemism comes from the Greek word euphemia, meaning “the use of words of good omen”, which is derived from root-words eu, “good or well” and pheme “speech or speaking”, meaning glory, flattering speech or praise. Etymologically (study of the history of words, their origins, how their form and meaning have changed over time) eupheme is the opposite of blaspheme (evil-speaking). The term euphemism itself was used by ancient Greeks, meaning “to keep a holy silence” (speaking well by not speaking at all.) This fits quite well with this author’s goal of explaining Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

It must be pointed out here that “holy silence”, or whatever that means, can’t be considered as speech. Silence only makes sense in relation to the words that are spoken. If there are no words or, rather, if there are no sounds, then there can't be any silence either.  Secondly, absence of words doesn’t mean silence. A silence in which one “speaks well by not speaking at all” is a forced silence. Such a silence may signify the absence of public speech, but doesn’t imply the absence of private speech. Thirdly, in NVB people understand silence as the absence of speech, but this view leaves out important conditions, which influence the quality of the silence, particularly the quality of silence during our speech. The fact that silence was elevated to “holy silence” and is equated with “not speaking at all” prevents perception of silence during speech. Effects of silence during speech are not well understood. 

Fourthly, in SVB, silence pertains to public and private speech. Absence of public speech can result into absence of private speech, but this isn’t necessarily the case. It can also lead to an increase in private speech. In the presence of incessant public speech, we often experience relief from the pressure that it put on us. Private speech gives evidence of this, when we describe to ourselves the calming effects of being alone again. This raises the question: of what kind of private speech is  this calming effect a function? Obviously, it is a function of negative, not positive private speech. The pressure that we experienced in our public speech is typical for NVB. In SVB there is no such pressure.

In SVB positive public speech maintains positive private speech. The idea of becoming silent inside of ourselves doesn’t arise, because SVB allows us to be quiet with others. Positive private speech, which we experience after we move away from SVB public speech, doesn’t need to be quieted down. Although it never was, NVB public speech needs to be calmed down. Since people were silenced and shamed for expressing such ideas, they became part of their NVB negative private speech. In conclusion, SVB reveals that any insistence on “holy silence” was in fact always preceded by NVB public speech. 

      

Public NVB caused private NVB and NOT the other way around. The latter is based on our ancient belief in an internal causal process, but SVB refutes this unscientific perspective. Without public NVB there would be no private NVB. If public NVB could be stopped once and for all, there wouldn’t be anything to stir private NVB with. If experiencing silence during our conversation is our objective, we need to deal with our communication differently than trying to shut each other up.