> Axiom 1 (cannot not) > > "One cannot not communicate." Because every behaviour is a kind of > communication, people who are aware of each other are constantly > communicating. Any perceivable behaviour, including the absence of action, > has the potential to be interpreted by other people as having some meaning. > > <>Axiom 2 (content & relationship) > > "Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the > latter classifies the former and is therefore a meta-communication." Each > person responds to the content of communication in the context of the > relationship between the communicators.[2] > <http://www.wanterfall.com/Communication-Watzlawick%27s-Axioms.htm#_ftn2> The > word meta-communication is used in various ways (and therefore not at all, by > me) but Watzlawick uses it to mean the exchange of information about how to > interpret other information. > > Just as the interpretation of the words "What an idiot you are" could be > influenced by the following words "Just kidding", it could also be influenced > by the relationship between the communicators. In the example given, the word > "idiot" might be accepted quite happily from a close friend, but convey an > entirely different meaning in other circumstances. > > <>Axiom 3 (punctuation) > > "The nature of a relationship is dependent on the punctuation of the > partners' communication procedures." In many cases, communication involves a > veritable maelstrom of messages flying in all directions. This applies > especially to the non-verbal messages. The "punctuation" referred to is the > process of organising groups of messages into meanings. This is analogous to > the punctuation of written language. In either case, the punctuation can > sometimes alter the meaning considerably. > > For example, consider the occurrence of an angry response after an > interruption, the latter having followed a suggested course of action. This > might be interpreted as anger at the suggested course of action, if the > interruption was "punctuated out" of the sequence, so that the suggestion and > the anger were effectively grouped together as a tight sequence. However, if > the receiver punctuated the information so that the interruption and the > anger formed a tight sequence, it might be interpreted as anger at the > interruption. > > <>Axiom 4 (digital & analogic) > > "Human communication involves both digital and analogic modalities." This one > needs a bit of translating! The term "digital", which today usually refers > either to numbers, computers or fingers, is used in this axiom to refer to > discrete, defined elements of communication. These are usually words, but > very specific gestures with generally agreed meanings would also qualify. > > The term "analogic" also needs some translation. It is a variant of > analogical, the adjective derived from analogy. It therefore refers to a > correspondence, in certain respects, between things which are otherwise > different. In this case, it describes a type of communication in which the > representation to some extent evokes the thing to which it refers. For > example, shaking a fist in front of a person's face would evoke the idea of > violence. > > What else needs translating? Oh yes, "modalities". As mentioned in Appendix > 1, the word "modality" is used in very many different ways. In this case, I > think Watzlawick is using modalities in the sense of types or sorts of > information transfer. > > <>Axiom 5 (symmetric or complementary) > > "Inter-human communication procedures are either symmetric or complementary, > depending on whether the relationship of the partners is based on differences > or parity." A "symmetric" relationship here means one in which the parties > involved behave as equals from a power perspective. The chance of airing all > the relevant issues should be greater, but it certainly does not guarantee > that the communication will be optimal. The parties could simply be equally > submissive, or equally domineering. However, communication between equals > often does work well. > > A "complementary" relationship here means one of unequal power, such as > parent-child, boss-employee or leader-follower. This is much more efficient > in some situations. For example, the unequal (complementary) relationship > between soldiers and their officers means that soldiers are very likely to > obey a surprising order, such as "Get out of the truck and jump in the > river!" without delay – rather than debating it, perhaps with great interest, > but quite possibly at fatal length. > Donna Y [email protected]
> On Sep 6, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > That was a colloquial english statement. If you want to treat it as a > mathematical statement you must first gather the axioms which it was > reflecting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
