July 16, 2015

July 16, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

This is the ninth writing which includes findings that were reported by the animal researchers Owren and Rendall in their paper “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997).

During private speech no sound is produced or heard. Sound is only produced and heard during public speech. It is ridiculous that schizophrenia has given status to hearing voices. Nobody can hear voices when no sound is made. 

When we wake up from a dream we know it was not real, but supposedly the schizophrenic day dream is something different. Psychosis is as unreal as a dream. Psychosis is private speech, which is, of course, a function of the kind of public speech I call Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), chaotic,  confusing, inconsistent and frightening public speech. 

The only solution to psychosis is Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) public speech, which that replaces NVB private speech with SVB private speech. Nothing needs to be done with the NVB private speech or psychosis. 

The fact that almost everybody has been trying to do something about NVB private speech has not helped anyone. It has not and could not increase SVB and it has not and could not decrease NVB. 

NVB can only be decreased by increasing SVB. Only those who know how to have SVB can influence and regulate the psychotic, bipolar or depressed person. Any concept of therapy that is based on content of speech misses out on the important onditioning effects of the sound of our voice. 

Due to the conditioning effects of our voice we regulate or dysregulate our selves and each other. The schizophrenic, bipolar or depressed produce him or herself a dysregulating sound.   

It is this sound needs to be changed and once that is accomplished the person is no longer schizophrenic, bipolar or depressed. We can only change one sound with another sound, but in NVB we get carried away by words.

July 15, 2015

July 15, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

 

Dear Reader, 

 

This is the eight writing which includes findings that were reported by the animal researchers Owren and Rendall in their paper “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997).

My latest entries are very satisfying to me because I seem to be able to leap over the days with giant steps. I know it sounds a little exaggerated, but it is sort of miracle to me that can do this. I have covered already more than half the distance and I am still only three days behind. 

I love to play with language like this. What else is falling behind, getting off track and catching than a bunch of words produced by my private speech? The imaginary audience, who reads this and makes writing a worthwhile activity, is my own reading, which happens mostly after I have written. 

First I write and then I read. There doesn’t seem to be such a thing as in speaking, that one can listen while one speaks. It doesn’t seem to be the case that I am reading while I am writing. I think that this is one of the many illusions which are created by printed language. 

The idea that the writer reads while he or she writes is based on the fact that one's private speech is calming down. Writing then is a method for calming down one’s private speech in the absence of others. 

It seems to be true that even the illusion of such a benefit is meaningful to the readers who want to read it. I wonder how much calming down is really good for us? Frankly, I think much so-called calmed down speech is toxic. 

There is a difference between being calm and trying to calm down. While trying to calm down we create the illusion of being calm, but in reality we are seldom calm. We stop trying to calm down when we are really calm. Thus, in SVB, we are not trying to calm down, but we are calm, whereas in NVB we pretend to be be calming down, but we are never really calm.

July 14, 2015

July 14, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

This is the seventh writing which includes findings that were reported by the animal researchers Owren and Rendall in their paper “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997).

It is amazing what ‘falling behind’ and ‘catching up’ can reveal. I will write about these papers later. Without ‘falling behind’ and without organizing a way to get ‘back on track’again certain discoveries could never be made. 

There is a need to ‘fall behind’ so that one can ‘catch up’ and this need is especially apparent in our vocal verbal behavior. In yesterday’s writing I still had the need to mention that my writing was only going to be one page long, but today I don ‘t have that urge anymore. 

Due to my catching-up-actions my language dissolves. Yesterday morning, as I was meditating near the creek, there was only the sound of the water and the birds and I had this one thought how important it is to be quiet. 

Inasmuch as we need to talk, we also need to be able to be quiet. Also, we need a way of talking which makes us quiet. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), in which the speaker influences the behavior of the listener in a negative way, cannot accomplish this, but Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), in which the speaker affects the listener with an affiliative, appetitive and positive contingency, creates and instills peacefulness. 

To discover and establish SVB, we must identify and prevent NVB. While we speak with one another, we must acknowledge that we ‘fall behind’ and ‘get off the track.’We engage in NVB and when we acknowledge that, we  ‘catch up’ and we regain and maintain SVB. 

There is no other way 'to catch up' then by talking. Although this process can be described in writing and many writings have been about this, such writings could never result into us getting ‘back on track’ and ‘catching up’ with our speaking. For that to happen, we must stop ourselves and each other each time when we have NVB.

July 13, 2015

July 13, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

This is the sixth writing which includes findings that were reported by the animal researchers Owren and Rendall in their paper “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997). 

Today’s writing will again only be one page long. It continues yesterday’s discovery that ‘self-listening’ versus ‘other-listening’ is very different for primates than for humans. As humans have public speech, they also have private speech, but as primates don’t have public speech, they also don’t have private speech. 

‘Self-listening’ or “speaker-as-own-listener” (SAOL) requires private speech.  Humans have SAOL with words, but primates have it without words. This is not to say that humans can’t have SAOL without words, they can. 

There is a big difference between human SAOL with or without words. We commonly perceive SAOL without words as quieting down, while SAOL with words is equated with getting upset. 

Language occurs on a continuum; on one end we are very expressive, then less expressive; towards one end there is lots of private speech, but at the end there no private speech at all. 

Language naturally recedes from an overt to a covert level while we grow up. As children we are usually very talkative as we are given words for everything we see, hear, feel, eat, touch, remember, but as we get older, our language is automatically reinforcing as it recedes into our private speech.

Since humans experience Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) public speech or Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) public speech, their private speech will always reflect the amount of SVB and NVB they have been conditioned by. 

Those who have experienced more NVB than SVB will be unable to have SAOL without words, while those who had more SVB than NVB, are not as impaired by or identified with their language. Moreover, those who have SAOL without words, only they can hear their own sound.

July 12, 2015

July 12, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

This is the fifth writing which includes findings that were reported by the animal researchers Owren and Rendall in their paper “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997). 

I use this opening for today’s writing knowing that I will probably not be writing about this paper today. By the way, this writing was not done on July 12, 2015, but on July 18, 2015, because I want to catch up with being behind,  while staying focused on the ‘work’ I need to do, that is, write about the above and other papers that have evolutionary evidence for Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

In yesterday’s writing, I made the bold decision to write an entry of only one page. I am going to stick with that until I am back on track. It is quite interesting that reviewing the situation allowed me to make that decision. 

Getting back on track by writing long entries was not going to happen. That was why I was falling behind in the first place. I have this strong sense of completion, which I feel obliged to. Now I am okay with writing one-page entries and I am sure I will be back on track soon.

Another decision was made: I am not going to write today about the above mentioned paper. Let’s face it, on July 12, 2015, I didn’t feel like writing about it, so why pretend to write about it today? I mention this to keep my focus and to get through this catching up business quicker. 

I also was not writing much lately because there was a mismatch between the reader and the writer. My writing had become writing for others and I myself as the reader had moved into the background more and more.

It can be compared to NVB, in which the speaker wants others to listen to him or her, but is not listening to him or herself. Interestingly, this was what the paper was about: vocalizations primates make to influence others.