April 19, 2016

April 19, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

Let us explore the ideas of Emilio Ribes-Iñesta documented in “Human Behavior as Language: Some Thoughts on Wittgenstein” (2006).  He states “language is not limited to a psychological phenomenon, but rather it constitutes the dimensions under which human behavior develops and becomes meaningful.” Although my thoughts are quite similar to his, I make the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which provides more context to interpret these words.  

We are bound to engage in NVB as long as our language remains “limited to a psychological phenomenon” and we are only able to engage in and explore SVB when we consider all “the dimensions under which human behavior develops and becomes meaningful.”  State differently, “language is not limited to” a psychological problem, which came about due to the circumstances “under which human behavior” couldn’t fully develop and become “meaningful.” It is a big mistake to equate language with NVB. 

Thus, when Ribes-Iñesta proposes “three dimensions of language relevant to human behavior: a) as a medium, b) as an instrument, and c) as a form of life”, he doesn’t realize that a more complete behavioral account of language requires another way of talking.  Moreover, like other behaviorists, he has written about these “relevant dimensions of human behavior,” because speaking about them was not (yet) possible. Speaking about language “a) as a medium, b) as an instrument, and c) as a form of life,” will only be possible if we know how to stop NVB and how to continue SVB.

The discrimination training that is need to be able to stop NVB and engage in SVB can’t be accomplished only by writing and reading and must involve speaking and listening.  Right now this is not part of the behaviorist curriculum. I propose such training which will make things clear which haven’t been able to become clear for the above mentioned reasons. The “traditional consideration” of language as “a special psychological or behavioral phenomenon, with a logical status similar to phenomena such as learning, memory and thinking,” will only be fully dissolved during SVB.  

April 18, 2016

April 18, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand concludes that “rather than being of only esoteric interest, schedule-induced behavior may be the behavioral basis for a variety of complex behavior patterns, including religious behavior.” This writer believes that he is absolutely right. Strand is even more to the point as he suggests “Independent of these considerations, the value of the present formulation lies in the fact that it posits a personal-experiential foundation for religion that is consistent with the writings of philosophers and religious scholars.” This writer, however, suggests that we also posit a “personal-experiential foundation” for our verbal behavior. Such a foundation fits perfectly with what he calls Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). 

While only SVB can capture our effortless, graceful, foundational, religious experience, Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) always involves the expression of our effortful, acquired and presumably purposeful religious behavior. The SVB/NVB distinction, which extends the already existing “behaviorally legitimate phenomena”, enables communicators to make sense of complex phenomena, such as religious and compulsive behaviors. By discriminating between SVB and NVB, we will witness an effortless decrease of NVB and an effortless increase of SVB.  Our increased ability to talk about our religious experiences, stimulated by the refinement that is caused by SVB, predicts that future generations will talk more with each other andwrite and read less than previous generations. The resurrection of spoken communication will create a new order as our old conflicts can finally be resolved. Just as we were once incapable of flying, we can now fly as our technology makes it possible. 

SVB will be possible for all of us, once it is taught. The decrease of NVB is a stabilizing process which will bring tremendous relief. Since we are finally able to talk with each other in a positive manner, our inclination to believe in some supernatural being extinguishes. We will be religious, but without a religion and we will create and sustain circumstances that enhance our lives.

April 17, 2016

April 17, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand explains that the laboratory research which was done on rats favor the notion that compulsive and addictive behaviors are schedule-induced, rather than automatically reinforced. “Given that religiosity is strongly linked to compulsive behavior, these laboratory findings suggest that schedule-induced behavior, or susceptibility to it, is perhaps the behavioral primitive for various complex behavior patterns that might include religious behavior” (Trimble, 2007). 

A similar conclusion can be drawn about the two universal response classes that make up the way we talk with one another. However, effortful religious behavior and compulsive behavior belong to the Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) category, while effortless religious behavior and effective or sensitive, communication, fall in the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) category. Strand disagrees with John Lennon’s song “Imagine there’s no Heaven” and states that “living a life completely free of religious behavior is perhaps impossible for verbal humans.” 

This writer thinks that this statement makes more sense when it is turned around: living a life free of verbal behavior is impossible for religious humans. Rather than trying to transcend it, effortless religious experience can make us sensitive to and conscious about verbal behavior. 

By listening to ourselves while we speak, we become conscious speakers as our listening happens in the here and now and our sound also happens in the here and now. This turns speech into a meditative act. Our inability to accurately describe sensitive experiences exists as previous environments stimulated us to survive by fleeing, fighting and freezing during our interactions with others. Sure enough we have survived due to NVB, but the comforts of our modern, scientific world stimulate us to develop SVB, the spoken communication in which everyone is complete safe and supported. To continue with NVB is as unintelligent and illiterate as to continue to believe that diseases are caused by evil spirits. 

April 16, 2016

April 16, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand writes that it would be good “to expand the response class to include topographically diverse phenomena” and “supports the idea that religious behavior transcends topography.” Rather than describing the goings on of Mother Teresa and her Sisters, this writer suggests we include how we sound while we speak about religious behavior. This gives us the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/ Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction, which makes clear that there is no need to transcend topography if we understand each other. 

Furthermore, our lack of understanding was based on a lack of attention in our spoken communication for how we sound. Our lack of understanding always involved a lack of experience, but once we begin to listen to ourselves while we speak, we embody our sound again because we ourselves stimulate the speaker-as-own-listener. Of course, this needs to be pointed to us by someone who knows about this and who can correct us if we stop listening to ourselves while we speak and become more concerned again with making others listen to us or with listening to others. As we will find out: listing to ourselves while we speak is an effortless, genuine religious experience.

Unlike what we pretend in NVB, we don’t try to sound good. In SVB, we simply sound good and the listener, who hears this, agrees with us. We sound good as we don’t need to try to sound good. We sound good as we can sound good because we are not aversively stimulated. The religious issue of transcendence doesn’t even arise as we are attuned with ourselves and each other. What has always been possible in ordinary conversation, due to its failure, became an imaginary conversation with a non-existing God and has given rise to negative public and private speech. Words like transcendence or self-as-infinite derive from our failed attempts to escape from and ideally avoid NVB. This view can be listened to due to the SVB/NVB distinction.