Q: At the end of Part I you said there is no verbal escape. But, to be honest Paul, and with all due respect, I'm not entirely convinced. So, could you explain what that means?
A: It means that we cannot assume a meta-verbal position.
Q: Why not? I mean, I know that might sound like a silly question. But, well, maybe it isn’t. So…
A: There are no silly questions in an inquiry like this.
In fact, I like your question.
Q: Why?
A: Because it backs our understanding of verbal behavior against the wall, so to speak. It puts it in checkmate.
Q: How so?
A: Well, to answer that, let’s go back to your question, Why not?
You asked why we cannot assume a meta-verbal position.
Q: Yes. Why can’t we assume a meta-verbal position?
A: Ok. Let me answer your question with a question. Would you like to assume a meta-verbal position?
Q: Sure. Why not?
A: Ok then. Could you explain why?
Q: Haha! Ok. I get it. But, what if I don’t answer. Isn’t that nonverbal response an example of meta-verbal behavior?
A: No. You’re not simply not responding. You’re refusing to respond. And you’re not responding because you don’t think my question is worth responding to. Which is fine. If that’s how you feel. But your response still has a context and that context is our discussion, which is a mode of verbal behavior. So, you might refuse to respond to verbal behavior, but your behavior can still be explained and I could then proceed to an explanation of my explanation. In short, I could explain both my behavior and yours, whereas you, by not responding, couldn’t explain anything. In short, humans cannot transcend verbal behavior.
Q: So the more we understand it the better?
A: Yes. Especially in our social institutions.
Q: And that would bring us back to the work you do with your partners?
A: Yes.
Q: Nice. Ok. So can we continue?
A: Of course.
Q: So, there is no position which can transcend verbal behavior, such as a meta-verbal position. Correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And, I guess that the same applies to nonverbal behavior? Because I also had my doubts about that.
A: Yes, the same applies.
Q: Could you explain?
A: Sure. Verbal behavior is not linguistic behavior.
Linguistic behavior subsumes both verbal and nonverbal behavior. So verbal behavior is a factor of linguistic behavior.
Q: And what nonverbal behavior does linguistic behavior subsume?
A: Intonation.
Q: Intonation?
A: Yes. That's why music is an abstraction from language.
Q: Alright. And?
A: Intonation is used to control response to the verbal factor of linguistic behavior. For example, as one often hears in Argentina, one person will call another person a Boludo! which can be anything from an insult to a term of endearment. If the intonation is ironic, the tone - as in intonation - cancels the aggression and is a sign that the use of the word is an ironic way of being friendly. The tone cancels the usual meaning.
Or, to give an example of incongruent behavior, during an argument between a couple one of them might ask, Why are you angry? And if the other responds by screaming, I’m not angry! Then the tone is incongruent with the words.
Q: So the intonation can be considered as a sign of how an utterance ought to be responded to?
A: That's right.
Q: Doesn’t this move us in the direction of sign behavior?
A: That’s exactly what it does.
Q: Could you say more about that?
A: Sure. Simply put, both the verbal factor and intonation factor of an utterance are signs. So, sign subsumes both word and intonation.
Q: And that means that the word “sign” can be applied as well to the non-verbal world?
A: Yes. Not only signs produced by human beings, such as gestures, but any configuration in the non-human-made world.
Q: I remember once during one of our meetings you said that if one pays attention, sooner or later Philosophy will tumble out of language and explanation, and in to Behavior and Psychology.
Is this part of our talk about verbal and nonverbal behavior an example of that?
A: Yes. Very much so.
Q: I thought so. Ok. To return to our discussion. What do you mean by the words sign and configuration in this context?
A: When a configuration, or figure, is perceptually distinguished from its ground it is then a sign.
Q: So, again, what is true of verbal signs is also true of nonverbal signs?
A: That's right. And, by the way, though it might sound repetitive to some, I would argue that, in this case, that repetition is the price we have to pay for clarity of understanding.
There are basically two kinds of repetition:
Repetition without Development (Cancel Culture, for example, which repeats the same complaints in the same obnoxious, moralizing Shaming Parent tone of voice without ever developing their ideas) and Repetition with Development (PRC).
Anyway, responses to signs (verbal and nonverbal) are fictive and normative. And by fictive I don't mean something totally made up. It's not being used here in a prejorative sense, but in a behavioral sense. Fictive in this case means As If. Meaning, our response selects from the totality of the world before us something specific as if that were the appropriate response. And by normative I don't mean it is the human norm, or social norm (though it very well might be). I mean that because we see our response as the appropriate one it ought to control our behavior.
Q: So fictive = as if, and normative = ought to?
A: Correct. As in ought to control our behavior.
Q: So, responses to signs are both fictive and normative?
A: Yes.
Q: Ok. Why?
A: Because response depends upon categorical subsumption and response transfer from familiar signs to an unfamiliar sign.
Q: In other words, as the world comes into our perceptual field, the world turns into signs?
A: That’s right. Well, to be more precise, that's the first stage.
Q: So, our relation to the world is a semiotic relation?
A: Our relation to the world is a semiotic relation. That’s right.
Q: Very interesting Paul. But I can hear someone respond to this by saying something like, This might be interesting. But it’s too abstract. How would you respond to that?
A: Well, in the first place, since no one responds to everything at once, literally everything we say and do is an abstraction from the totality of human behavior in general and even of available responses to a specific context in particular. That’s not to say that we can’t go into more details. We can and should. And, as you know, we are prepared to. And we love it. It’s what we do.
Q: So, from that perspective, the abstract nature of this discussion is an example of the carrot on the stick to attract potential partners who might want to hear more?
A: That’s one way of putting it. It’s also a way to weed out the unsympathetic more interested in judging than in knowing.
Q: Yes. And, as you well know, I was one of those people who often said, This is too abstract. Haha!
A: Yeah, I know. And it led to many interesting conversations that allowed us to fill in the blanks with details that made it possible for us to see the relevance and usefulness of our work together.
Q: Yes. The conversations were very interesting and friendly as well. They still are. Speaking of which. Why don’t we continue this conversation later in Part III?
Opmerkingen