Q: In PartI & II we talked about the basic proposition of PRC and of related things like verbal and nonverbal behavior. I would like to start Part III with a question about something you often mention in our meetings - adaptation. Specifically, adaptational behavior. You’ve often said that for human beings verbal behavior is species-specific. So my question now is, What made the leap from nonverbal to verbal behavior possible for humans?
A: That the human brain is capable of random response accounts for this leap from nonverbal to verbal behavior.
Q: So, from the perspective of nonverbal behavior all verbal behavior is random?
A: Yes. But, before we continue, it’s important to back up a bit and clarify something. Now, we’ve just established that, from the evolutionary point of view, the puzzle is how the leap from nonverbal to verbal behavior was accomplished. And what we mean by that is that the leap from categorization dependent upon the continuity of attributes from one sign to another (nonverbal semiotic response) to categorization not so dependent (verbal semiotic response) is accounted for by the primary attribute of the human brain, which is randomness of response. And that’s why, to repeat or restate your excellent question, from the perspective of nonverbal behavior all verbal behavior is random.
Q: I appreciate your clarification. But, of course, it raises a question, which is, what does any of this mean? How would you respond to anyone who says, What does any of this analytical rigamarole have to do with me and my organization or my life?
A: Well, to respond I’ll stick to the procedural and let them make the personal connection.
Q: Fair enough. So what would your procedural response be?
A: The result of the imposition of verbal behavior on nonverbal behavior is the enormous increase of the possibilities of randomness of response, of destabilization of behavior, and consequently for the necessity of the control of verbal behavior if interaction is to take place, as it must for economic reasons.
And, because my partners are, for the most part, economic institutions, whenever I mention that it changes everything.
Q: They sit up straight and start paying attention? A: Yep. Not always, of course. But the smarter ones do, yeah.
Q: Why do you think that is?
A: Because the partners I’ve had, most of them at least, genuinely care about their organizations and want to know more about how they work. They also know enough about me to know that I’m operating in good faith and that I too care about their organization and that I love what I do and though I know what I’m talking about, I encourage them to test me by asking questions. If I can’t answer them adequately or appropriately, in their judgment, I should be given the chance to persuade them that their judgment is in error, and if I can’t do that then they should terminate the relationship immediately. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I may be right or wrong. It just means the relationship won't work.
Q: And that touches on the very subject of this Q & A, doesn't it?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: Could we go into that for a moment before continuing?
A: Sure. The Directors, or CEO, of any organization interested in what we do here at PRC is the Power Center of our relationship. That has to be understood, not just by me, but by both of us. Second, it also has to be understood, especially by me, that my relationship to them is a symbiotic relationship.
Q: Not to interrupt, but you go into that in some detail in your entry on High Culture, no?
A: Yes.
Q: Just a moment ago you were talking about randomness of response and the need for the control of human behavior. You went from that to a discussion of how this plays out in your relationship with your partners and how you base that relationship on persuasion, and I can certainly account for that from personal experience with you. So, to get back to what we’ve said so far and how it relates to the work you do with your partners, is it safe to say that central to all of this is Explanation?
A: Yes. Of course.
Q: How so?
A: Well, to restate what I said earlier, verbal behavior has to be controlled if interaction is to take place, as it must for economic reasons. And the complete form of that verbal control over behavior is Explanation. And Explanation is built up initially by verbal subsumption of nonverbal signs.
Q: So then the response to signs entails the production of signs?
A: Yes. In fact, that’s the defining attribute of human semiotic behavior. It’s why the most precise definition of human behavior is semiotic transformation.
Q: Could you elaborate?
A: Sure. Explanation Controls Behavior. And the recognition that behavior must be controlled is complemented by the recognition that all behavior is aggressive, in that the organism has no choice(if they want to live) but to struggle to control and exploit the environment, including for human beings, the centrally important verbal environment. And now we’re back to the word adaptation and its importance to us for our survival.
Q: Could you explain a bit more about how we go about controlling the environment, especially the verbal environment?
A: To help us understand this better two basic categories can be distinguished, both easily identified in linguistic behavior.
Q: And what are they?
A: Performatory Signs, which give us instructions on what is to be done, and Regulatory Signs which give instructions concerning the appropriate level of aggression.
Q: Appropriate in the judgment of someone?
A: Always.
Q: So, there’s no immanent meaning, meanings are determined?
A: That’s right. That's why disagreements can lead to everything from a feeling of tension in the air, to conflict between two people who otherwise might love each other very much, to war between two groups of people who don't love each other at all.
Q: So, semiotic behavior, including verbal behavior, controls both meaning and aggression?
A: Yes. Well, the semiotic behavior of the individual or culture.
Q: Could you say more about performatory and regulatory signs?
A: Certainly. In linguistic behavior, words are performatory signs and intonational signs are regulatory. Any configuration for which a response has been established can be a performatory sign. Regulatory signs are such matters as pitch, rhythm, volume, tempo, color, verticality, horizontality, shallowness, depth, etc.
Q: And what do regulatory signs do?
A: Regulatory signs are interpreted to signify either guidance or hindrance to aggression.
Q: This seems to be moving in the direction of Interpretation.
A: Yes. Of course.
Q: So, could we begin Part IV with a discussion of Interpretation and how it relates to Explanation and all the rest?
Comments