Language Enlightenment

Sunday, April 2, 2017

March 27, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand describes that “these personal experiences are the truest and most genuine expressions of faith, out of which less genuine, acquired expressions arise.” How can it be, that out of something genuine, something less genuine arises? This writer knows exactly how this happens. It happens because of how we talk about our religious experiences. The subtlety of the experience is lost as our way of talking makes it disappear. Things even get worse when we write about our religious experiences. We would write about them more accurately, if we could speak about them more accurately, but as long as we haven’t really acknowledged that writing about them is a function of our inability to speak about them, this is not going to happen. The less genuine version of our religious experience, that is, most of what has been written about it, does NOT arise out of our genuine experience. Indeed, the less genuine version emerges from the absence of and a longing for genuine religious experience.

Another question needs to be asked: why is it such a problem to talk about the subtle experiences, which we call religious experiences? Many so-called spiritual people, those who are believed to have reached enlightenment or self-realization, insisted we shouldn’t even try to talk about these religious experiences and that we should remain silent. Why is it that our meditation ends the moment we open our mouths? It is not because of the fact that we are talking, but it is because of how we talk. If we would talk in a meditative, sensitive way, we engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), but if we talk in a mechanical, insensitive way, we have Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

NVB cannot give rise to SVB and SVB cannot give rise of NVB. When we have SVB, NVB stops. Likewise, when we have NVB, SVB stops. The environment inside and outside of our skin changes at any given time and these environmental changes are causing our SVB or NVB. If we knew about the SVB/NVB distinction, we would be able to continue with SVB, but since we don’t know about this difference, we keep unknowingly swinging back and forth between SVB and NVB, while we are mostly engaging in NVB.

March 26, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” ( 2009) Strand quotes Hood & Merton (1948) and Tillich (1957), who describe that the “foundation of faith is based on private, personal experiences; not socially mediates ones.” These authors state “these personal experiences are the truest and most genuine expressions of faith, out of which less genuine, acquired expressions arise.” Merton and Tillich are not behaviorists and therefore they don’t and can’t explain our religious experience in terms of verbal behavior. Instead, they describe this experience as caused by an inner self.

Merton and Tillich acknowledge “not all religious behavior is equal” and distinguishe between “acquired religious behavior” that is “motivated by and can be understood in terms of social contingencies” and “foundational religious behavior”, which “falls outside the control of socially mediated reinforcement.” Note, that the former is explained from an environmental or behaviorist perspective, while the latter is explained from a behavior-causing inner agent perspective. However, any behaviorist would say that Merton and Tillich are of course both determined by environmental variables.

Schoenfield (1993), a behaviorist, rejected “the notion of a non-social personal-experiential foundation of faith.” Dawkins (2006), who is not a behaviorist, stated “those behaviors that involve faith – that disregard reason – [that] are really pernicious.” Religious behavior remains a conundrum as religious scholars, writers, continued to identify “faith” or “believing the incredible” as “a foundational expression” (Chesterton, 1986).

Strand writes that “a complete scientific account of religious behavior” can be accomplished by his writing, but this writer insists that we must talk instead of write about religious experience in order to become clear about it. The only way in which we will be able to talk coherently about our diverse religious experiences is when we achieve Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), the spoken communication that is based on the absence of aversive stimulation. There is nothing incredible about religious experience once we talk about it.

March 25, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

By embracing the distinction between “graceful” and “effortful” religious behaviors, described by Paul Strand in “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009), we learn a lot about how we talk with each other. When we talk about these matters, we agree that only the “graceful” way of talking can be considered as a religious behavior, but that our “effortful” way of talking involves the absence of and at best the longing for religious behavior. Stated differently, “Many aspects of religious experience and behavior” have been “overlooked or disregarded,” as we have not paid any attention to religious vocal verbal behavior versus non-religious vocal verbal behavior.

Only religious scholars, who mostly do not talk with each other about these matters, accept the written distinction between “graceful” and “effortful” religious behavior. However, once they engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) about this topic, it would become clear that “effortful” religious behavior is of course a contradiction. This contradiction has continued to exist as writings have blurred the lines between “graceful” and “effortless.”

Strand is just another one those religious scholars, who states “Religious behavior is no different than other operant behavior; it occurs to the extent that is confers political, economical and social advantages.” What can be glanced from this definition is that it refers to “effortful” religious behavior and not to “graceful” religious behavior. “Graceful” behavior only has to do with mutual “social advantages”, but not with “political” or “economical advantages.” In other words, our “graceful” religious behavior only maps onto SVB, while our struggle for “political” or “economical advantages” always requires our involvement in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

It should be stated squarely that our non-religious way of talking, NVB, is an operant behavior, “a behavior that was established through reinforcement” which, as we all know, “eventually becomes resistant to extinction.” Our SVB, on the other hand, is a non-operant schedule-induced behavior. As “a rule-governed behavior” it is not susceptible to consequences and it persists regardless of circumstances. In spite of the ubiquity of NVB, SVB continues.

March 24, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This writer read the paper “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” by Paul Strand (2009) and decided to comment on this paper with the Constantia font. In the abstract this writer noticed something, which immediately spoke to him. Strand writes “that a class of religious behaviors exists that is induced, for prepared organisms, by specific stimuli that are experienced according to a response-independent schedule” (italics by this writer). By saying nice things and by being friendly, we use response-independent reinforcers to build rapport or strengthen our relationships. This refers to increasing the amount of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) instances in our verbal episodes. In SVB we exchange positive emotions. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), by contrast, is characterized by the absence of such niceties.

If the listeners to a NVB speaker would pay attention to what they are actually feeling (something they are not very inclined to), they would acknowledge that the NVB speaker induces negative emotions in them. Interestingly, Strand identifies two “minimal units out of which functional behavior may arise.” The two classes of religious behavior he identifies are: “non-operant schedule-induced behaviors and operant behaviors.”

Strand mentions that religious many scholars and philosophers have described the “non-operant schedule-induced behavior” as “graceful” and “operant behaviors” as “effortful.” This description matches perfectly with SVB and NVB. SVB is an effortless way of speaking, which is effortlessly understood by the listener. NVB, on the other hand, is effortful for both the speaker and the listener. According to Strand’s analysis then, SVB is a non-operant schedule-induced behavior while NVB is an operant behavior.

Reading of this paper made this writer think of spoken communication as a religious experience. Almost everyone who was introduced to the SVB/NVB distinction has said that SVB made them feel like and think of having a religious experience, while NVB made them deny or long for having such an experience. Also this writer would say he experiences SVB as a religious behavior, but he doesn’t find spirituality in NVB. He has never thought that his strong urge to pursue exploration of SVB was a religiously motivated behavior. Only now does he suddenly realize that his intense objection against NVB was religiously motivated. This writer was raised in a Catholic family and community, in which the foundation for SVB was conditioned.

March 23, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

I am so happy that I am writing about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and that you, my the reader, can share in this happiness with me. Once we know the difference between SVB and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), we no longer emphasize what we think over what we experience, while we talk. However, our emphasis on experience, which is expressed in SVB, transcends both the one who experiences as well as the experience itself. This is ultimately why so few people can continue with SVB: you hang on to a sense of self, an ego or, whatever you may call it. Of course, all of this happens, because nobody in your environment stimulates you to have SVB, that is, nobody knows how to talk without performing the old trick of getting identified with whatever you believe to be. The one person who stimulated me into having this conversation with you didn’t care at all about having this conversation with me. I would have never discovered SVB, if he had accepted my strong inclination to talk with him about this matter. At the time, I was feeling very upset and confused about his refusal to talk with me, but now I can understand him and I am thankful that he did. Not who I am, but that I am, makes experience possible. My body and your body will one day disintegrate. No experiences are needed to return to where we came from. During SVB, we realize this, but during NVB, we pretend as if we are immortal and this is not going to happen.