I meant the axioms relating to market and transaction structure. But, thanks,
-- Raul On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:59 AM Donna Y <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
